• «s e* 









jP-n^. 



o_ .r«-T.- 0^ '^V'-'TfT'' <^' 










-oK 















\,^ 









.=,■^•^0. 




.^^^♦. 




• 4 o 







*bv* 




*^0^ 



fev" 








4 o 













,^ 




^<5^ *'o.a' ^^ 









,<f> ^^ 




."^-^ * 







: %/ 




■.''^' 







V.-' .^0 







> .\ 




^^ .\ 













THE EVOLUTION 
OF BELIEFS 



BY 



J, W. GORDON 




BROADWAY PUBLISHING CO. 

835 Broadway, New York 

BRANCH OFFICES: CHICAGO. WASHINGTON. BALTIMORE. 
ATLANTA. NORFOLK. D£S MOINES. IOWA 



s^'-c. 






Copyright, 191 i. 
By Broadway Publishing Company, 






©CLA297584 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Religion and Science .... 9 
II. The Datum of Belief , ... 31 

III. The Specialized Ideas of Supernat- 

ural Agents 84 

IV. The Christian Bible Statement of 

Creation — The Genesis of the He- 
brews — Life and Death of Their 
God 106 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 

Many years since a preacher of the evangelical 
type, who had been informed by one of his Christian 
members that I was an infidel, preached a sermon for 
my benefit. 

Being at this time a Httle unsettled in my belief 
and skeptical in my views of the Bible form of reHg- 
ion, the effect of the preacher's sermon has caused 
me to examine the subject of many religions to fix on 
some true and unequivocal form of belief. 

Otherwise, continuing to profess a belief in some- 
thing, our consciousness apprehends as not true, or 
thus to make my trust unfaithful in its adherence to 
truth, I would yet have remained an infidel. 

Although my belief was unsettled, it has not proven 
to be an illusion, for that is an idea presented to the 
mind's eye of something that does not in reality exist. 

Nor my belief has not been, in its form, that of an 
hallucination; it was not the subject of an illusion. 
Then my belief was of a valid form. I believed in 
something tangible; but similar to all those who pro- 
fess to be believers in Christianity, I had been held 
under the influence of a delusion. 

A delusion is a false view entertained of something 
which really exists, but which does not possess the 
qualities or attributes erroneously ascribed to it. On 
trying to make my escape from such false views, I 
was censured as being an infidel, yet we have a firm 
and unwavering belief in a Creative Power and the 
immortality of the soul. 

5 



Preface 



During our investigations of the religious subject 
for the past thirty years, we have successfully estab- 
lished a belief in every way satisfactory to us and the 
requirements of nature. 

We have also determined, beyond all questions to 
the contrary, that the Bible was written by vulgar au- 
thority, similar to all other books, and is hence not 
a divine revelation. 

However, our object is neither to prove the Bible 
true, nor yet to prove it untrue; but simply to show 
what it teaches. 

If its teaching is divine, and necessarily true, it fol- 
lows that a man created the universe. 

Not being prepared to accept this proposition as a 
true statement of the facts, we have no hesitancy in 
saying that the Bible is not an inspired or divine reve- 
lation. 

Did the Bible excel, in purity of ideas and expres- 
sions, all the books I know extant in the world, I could 
not accept it for my rule of faith as being the word 
of the Almighty Creator, because the possibility would 
still remain of my being imposed upon. 

In our treatment of Evolution of Belief, the main 
object has been to bring us in closer touch with the 
true Creator and further from those of a spurious 
type. 

And whether it be a Christian, pagan, or Jew ; gen- 
tile, theologian, philosopher, or theist; idolator, king, 
or artisan, it is immaterial who knocks at truth's door; 
her admissions are not Hmited to doctrine, wealth, po- 
sition, nor title. 

If the participant's spirit maintains, in its environ- 
ments, honest, unprejudiced, impassionate principles, 
keeping, at the same time, in a mental condition of 
sincerity, he may perceive in Nature, whose bounti- 
ful store is ever overflowing with the realities of ex- 

6 



Pteface 



istence, a most exalted and perfect image of Truth, 
the agent to regulate his conduct on the journey of 
Eternity. 

Hence, the honest, truth and justice-loving individ- 
ual, who desires to obtain the facts from an unpreju- 
diced investigation of such an all-important subject, 
we submit a part of our labor, contained in the pages 
of this book, to your careful perusal. 

In the compilation of it, and in the original parts 
of its construction, to suit our purpose, we have con- 
sulted the following authors : 

Herbert Spencer, A. J. Davis, the Christian Bible, 
the International Cyclopedia, the Universal Diction- 
ary, Thomas Paine, Draper, Huxley, Webster, and 
Hull. 

Very respectfully, 

J. W. Gordon, M.D., M.E. 

Bowerston, Ohio, Feb. 25, 191 1. 

The Author, 



Wbt Cbolution of Reliefs; 



CHAPTER I. 

RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 

In the succeeding chapters of this volume the gene- 
sis of deities will be fully set forth by implication 
and by a chapter dealing specially with the subject. In 
these, we will notice those classes of deities in which 
human personalities have been greatly disguised. 
Again dealing with those classes of deities which 
arose by simple idealization and expansion of human 
personalities. 

We have also noticed that some men, by misinter- 
pretation of traditions, had their individualities merged 
into those of natural objects, while the individuahties 
of other men survived with manlike attributes. In 
addition to this it has further been demonstrated that 
the early traditions represent rulers as gods and 
fabulous heroes as demigods. 

Primitive kings were regarded by their subjects as 
superhuman in origin and superhuman in power ; they 
possessed divine titles, received obeisances similar to 
those made before the altars of the deities, and in 
some instances they were actually worshipped. 

If there needs proof that the divine and half divine 
characters originally ascribed to monarchs were as- 
cribed literally, we have it in the fact that there are 



Cfie (Cttolutiott of "Beliefg 

still existing savage races, among whom it is held 
that the chiefs and their kindred are of celestial ori- 
gin, or, as elsewhere, that only the chiefs have souls. 
And it is not strange that along with beliefs of this 
nature there existed a belief in the unlimited power of 
the ruler over his subjects, which extended to an 
absolute possession of them, even to the taking of 
their lives at the will of the ruler, as we find yet in 
Fiji, where a victim stands unbound to be killed at 
the word of his chief, himself declaring, "Whatever 
the king says must be done." 

However, among less barbarous races at other times, 
we have found these beliefs a little modified. 

Instead of the monarch being literally thought god 
or demigod, he was conceived to be a man having di- 
vine authority, with perhaps more or less of divine 
nature. As in the East at the present day, he retained 
titles expressing his heavenly descent or relationships, 
and is saluted in forms and words as humble as those 
addressed to the Deity. While practically the lives 
and property, if not so completely at his mercy, are 
supposed to be his. 

And we find during the middle ages, at a time later 
in the progress of civilization of Europe, the current 
opinions respecting the relationship of rulers and the 
ruled are further changed. 

Now divine right becomes substituted for the theory 
of divine origin. There is no longer god or demigod, 
or even god descended; he is now only simply re- 
garded as God's vice-gerent, an officer deputed to 
exercise the power of another. 

His sacred titles now lose much of their meaning, 
while the obeisances made to him are not so extreme 
in their humility. Moreover, his authority ceases to 
be unlimited. Subjects yield allegiance only in the 

lO 



Cfte Ctiolutfon of IBeliefg 

shape of obedience to his commands and deny his 
right to dispose of their Hves and properties. 

With the advancement of civiHzation poHtical opin- 
ion has caused a still greater restriction of imperial 
power. 

A belief in the supernatural character of the ruler, 
which by us long ago was repudiated, has left noth- 
ing more than a popular tendency to ascribe unusual 
goodness, wisdom, and beauty to the monarch. 

Originally, loyalty meant implicit submission to the 
king's will, but now it means merely a profession of 
subordination and the fulfilment of certain forms of 
respect. And those regal prerogatives which were 
once possessed unquestioned, our political theory and 
practice to-day, similarly, reject them. 

By putting some men in their places and deposing 
others, we have not only denied the divine rights of 
certain ones to rule, but have denied their rights 
beyond those originating in the assent of the nation. 

Though our state documents and our forms of 
speech still assert the subjection of the people to the 
ruler, our actual beliefs, with our daily practices, im- 
pHcitly assert the opposite. 

We obey no laws except those of our own making ; 
the monarch has been entirely divested of legislative 
power; and we should immediately rebel against his 
exercise of such power, even in matters of the small- 
est concern. 

In ancient times, the individuals existed for the 
benefit of the State, whether the governments were 
popular or despotic ; they had unlimited authority over 
their subjects, but now the State exists for the benefit 
of the people. In brief, the aboriginal doctrine is all 
but extinct among us. 

The views entertained respecting governments in 
II 



Cfte (gtiolutfon of TBzlittg 

general, of whatever form, are now widely different 
from those once entertained. 

Laws regulating dress and modes of living, ages 
since, have fallen into disuse, and any attempt to re- 
vive them would prove the current opinion to be that 
such matters lie beyond the sphere of legal control. 

For some centuries the people have been asserting 
in practice, and now have established the theory, that 
every man has a right to choose his own religious 
beliefs, instead of having to receive such beliefs on 
State authority. 

Within the last few generations, we have inaugu- 
rated complete liberty of speech, and urge that the 
sole function of the State is the protection of persons 
against each other, and against a foreign foe. It is 
also further asserted, throughout civilization, that a 
manifest tendency has been to continually extend the 
liberties of the subject, and restrict the functions of 
the State, so that the ultimate political condition must 
be one in which personal freedom is the greatest 
while governmental power is the least possible. This 
means, namely, that in which the freedom of each has 
no Hmit but the like freedom of all, while the Hke 
governmental duty is the maintenance of this limit. 

Here, then, in different times and places, we find 
concerning the origin, authority, and functions of the 
government, a great variety of opinions. 

But now what must be said about the truth or falsity 
of these opinions? Save among a few tjarbarous 
tribes, the notion that a monarch is a god or demigod 
is regarded throughout the world as an absurdity al- 
most passing the bounds of human credulity. The 
belief that there is anything sacred in legislative reg- 
ulations is dying out; laws are coming to be consid- 
ered as conventional only. In most civilized com- 
munities, that still admit the divine right of govern- 

12 



Cfie (gtiolution of T5tlit(s 

ments, they have long since repudiated the divine 
right of kings. And now it is only in a few places 
that there survives a vague notion ascribing supernat- 
ural attributes to their ruler. 

Hence of all antagonisms of belief, the oldest, the 
widest, the most profound, the most important, and 
about which the unprejudiced thinking mind of the 
world desires to know the truth, is the controversy 
between Religion and Science. 

The question here will not be the value or novelty 
of some particular truth arrived at, but to exhibit 
the more general truth, which we are apt to over- 
look : that between the most opposite beliefs there is 
usually something in common. In all these conflicts 
something must be taken for granted by each, and if 
this something cannot be set down as an unquestion- 
able verity, it may yet be considered to have the high- 
est degree of probability. 

Such involves a postulate, which, similar to the one 
above instanced, is not consciously asserted but un- 
consciously involved, not consciously by one man or 
body of men whose beliefs diverge in countless ways 
and degrees, but by numerous bodies of men who 
have a warrant for transcending any that usually can 
be shown. But in this case when the postulate is 
abstract and is not based on some one concrete ex- 
perience common to all mankind, but implies an induc- 
tion from a great variety of experiences, we may say 
that it ranks next in certainty to the postulates of 
exact science. 

But in our research for the elements of truth con- 
tained in the things erroneous, we hope to bring home 
clearly the fact that in opinions appearing absolutely 
and supremely wrong, there is something to be found 
which should indicate our method in obtaining that 
which is right. This method will be to compare all 

13 



Ci)e (gtoolution of ^eliefg 

opinions of the same genus; to set aside all those 
various special and concrete elements discrediting one 
another in which such opinions disagree ; to observe 
what remains after the discordant constituents have 
been eliminated; and then to find for this remaining 
constituent that abstract expression which holds true 
throughout its divergent modifications. 

This general principle being accepted and the course 
it indicates having been adopted, will greatly aid us 
while dealing with those chronic antagonisms wherein 
men are at variance. 

By applying such a measure not only to the current 
ideas with which we are unconcerned, but also to our 
own ideas and those of our opponents, we will be 
enabled to form far more correct judgments. 

Being ever ready to suspect that the convictions 
we may entertain will not be wholly right and that 
the adverse convictions will not be wholly wrong, we 
will not on the one hand, in common with the great 
mass of the unthinking, let our beliefs be determined 
by the mere accidents of birth in a particular age, or 
on a particular part of the earth's surface; and on 
the other hand, we shall be saved from the error of 
entire and contemptuous negation, which is fallen 
into by most all who take up an independent attitude 
of criticism. 

As we shall now notice, antagonism of belief com- 
menced when the recognition of the simplest uniform- 
ities in surrounding things set a limit to the once 
universal superstition. 

It has shown itself everywhere throughout the do- 
main of human knowledge, affecting men*s interpre- 
tations alike of even the simplest mechanical acci- 
dents and of the most complicated events in the his- 
tories of nations. 

In the different orders of minds, it has its roots deep 

H 



C&e evolution of IStlitts 

down in the diverse habits of thought. And these di- 
verse habits of thought severally, generating conflict- 
ing conceptions of nature and life, influence for good, 
or evil, the tone of life and feeling prompting conduct. 

This unceasing battle in the antagonism of opinion, 
carried on through ages, under the banners of Relig- 
ion and Science, has of necessity generated an ani- 
mosity fatal to the estimate of either party to the 
other. 

But the time has come when an increasing catho- 
licity of feeling is displayed, which we expect to carry 
as far as our natures deem valuable for the benefit 
of humanity. 

In proportion as we love the truth more, and vic- 
tory less, we shall be prepared to know what leads 
our opponents to think as they do. 

Suspecting that the pertinacity of belief exhibited 
by them must result from a perception of something 
we have not perceived, our aim will be to supplement 
the portion of truth found by us by the portion fur- 
nished by them. In our more rational estimate of 
human authority we shall equally avoid the extremes 
of undue submission and undue rebellion. 

In doing this it will not become necessary for us 
to regard some men's judgments as wholly good and 
others as wholly bad; but will prefer to lean to the 
more defensible opinion that none are completely right 
and none are completely wrong. This impartial atti- 
tude being as far as possible preserved, we will then 
contemplate two sides to this great controversy. Shut- 
ting out the bias of education and the whisperings 
of sectarian feeling, let us conscientiously contem- 
plate what are the a priori probabilities in favor of 
each party. 

If we duly realize the general principle above illus- 
trated, it will lead us to anticipate that the existing 

IS 



Cfte (gtiolution of Ogeliefg 

diverse forms of belief have had and still remain to 
have a bias in some ultimate fact. 

Should we judge by analogy, the inference would be 
that not any of them is altogether right, but that in 
each there must be something more or less wrong. 

It may be that the element of truth contained in 
the erroneous creeds is very much dissimilar to the 
several embodiments, and as we have good reason to 
suspect, it is much more abstract, wherein the un- 
likeness necessarily follows. 

But however this element differs from its concrete 
expressions, some essential verity must be looked for. 
Should we suppose that all these multiform concep- 
tions are absolutely groundless, would discredit too 
profoundly that average human intelligence from 
which we inherit all our individual intelligence. 

The more general reasons here are, we shall find, 
enforced by other more special ones. To the presump- 
tion that a number of diverse beliefs of the same 
class have some common foundation in fact, we must 
add a further presumption derived from the omnipres- 
ence of the beliefs. We must in the start admit that 
religious ideas of one variety or another are almost 
universal, and then seek to find the reasons for each. 

We know that in places there are tribes who have 
no theory for creation, no word for deity, no propiti- 
atory acts, no idea of another Hfe. We have further 
learned, also, that it is only when a certain phase of 
intelligence is reached that the most rudimentary of 
such theories make their appearance; but when they 
do, the imiplication is practically the same. 

We will grant that among all races, who have passed 
a certain stage of development, that there are found 
vague notions concerning the origin and hidden na- 
ture of surrounding things; and here arises the in- 

i6 



Cfie (gaolutton of igeliefg 

ference that such ideas must be necessary products 
of progressing intelligence. 

The endless variety of such notions serves to 
strengthen this conclusion, which shows a more or 
less independent genesis, indicating in different places 
and times that similar conditions have generated the 
same trains of thought ending in analogous results. 

That these different and yet countless allied phe- 
nomena presented by all religions, are accidental or 
factitious, is an untenable supposition. 

The doctrine maintained by some, that creeds are 
priestly inventions, is quite negatived by a candid 
examination of the evidence. 

This, as a mere question of probability, cannot 
rationally be concluded, that in each past, present, 
savage, and civilized society certain members of the 
community have combined to delude the others in 
ways so nearly similar. 

If it is alleged that a primitive fiction was devised 
by some original and primary priesthood, previous to 
the dispersion of mankind from the common center, 
the answer is furnished by philology, which proves 
that the dispersion of mankind took place before the 
existence of a language sufficient to express religious 
ideas. But should we grant it otherwise tenable the 
hypothesis of artificial origin does not account for 
the facts. 

Why certain elements of religious belief remain 
constant under all changes of form, it does not ex- 
plain. 

Neither does it show us how it happens that, while 
adverse criticism has from age to age gone on de- 
stroying particular theological dogmas, the fundamen- 
tal conception underlying these dogmas has not been 
destroyed. 

The hypothesis of an artificial fiction for the origin 

17 



Clie CtJOlution ot T3tlitf» 



of the many religions leaves us without any solution 
of the more striking circumstance, that when absurd- 
ities and corruptions accumulate around them, national 
creeds have fallen into discredit, ending in diflfer- 
entisms or positive denial, which has always been 
followed sooner or later by a reassertion of them. It 
may not be the same in form, but still the same in 
essence. 

Thus the independent evolution among primitive 
races of religious ideas and the general universality 
of them among most all races, with their great vital 
tenacity, combine to show that their origin must have 
been deeply seated and not superficial. 

If they have not been supernaturally derived as 
the majority contend, we are obliged to admit in 
other words that they must have been derived out of 
human experiences slowly accumulated and organ- 
ized. 

Should it be asserted that religious sentiment origi- 
nated religious ideas, to satisfy merely the demands, 
which afterward projected imagination into the ex- 
ternal world to be mistaken for realities, does not yet 
solve the problem, but only removes it further back. 

If it should be asserted that sentiment and idea 
have a common genesis, we desire to know who is 
the father of the sentiment idea. 

That the sentiment is a constituent of man's nature 
is implied in the hypothesis and cannot be denied by 
any other. 

But the religious sentiment which is displayed habit- 
ually by the majority of mankind cannot be ignored, 
because it may be classed among the human emotions 
occasionally in those who are seemingly devoid of it. 

Here, as elsewhere, we are forced to ask its origin 
and function. To say the least, it is an attribute of 
enormous influence, which has played a conspicuous 

i8 



Cfte OBiioIutiott of 'Beliefe 

part throughout the past as far back as the records 
of history; it is at present the stimulus to perpetual 
controversies, the life of many institutions, and the 
prompter of countless daily actions. 

Now we may say that whatever does not take ac- 
count of this attribute must be a very defective theory. 
Were there no other view, here, than a question of 
philosophy, and we should be called on to say what 
this attribute means, the task cannot be declined with- 
out an acknowledgment that the philosophy is in- 
competent. 

In this two suppositions present themselves, name- 
ly, first, that the feeHng which responds to religious 
ideas resulted in union with all other human faculties, 
from an act of special creation; the other one, that 
the sentiment, in common with the rest, arose by a 
process of evolution. 

If we adopt the first theory, which was the one 
universally accepted by our ancestors and now by 
the immense majority of our co-temporaries, the 
matter is at once settled that man has been naturally 
endowed by a religious feeling from his creator, and 
to this creator his feeling naturally responds. 

But should the second theory be adopted, then the 
question comes, to what is the circumstances of the 
genesis. What is its office? 

The circumstances force the entertainment of these 
questions, to which answers must be furnished. 

On this supposition all the faculties must be con- 
sidered to result from the intercourse of the organism 
with its environment. Again obliging us to admit 
that in the environment there exists certain phenomena 
or conditions which have developed the feeling now 
in question ; but this causes us to admit that the feel- 
ing is as normal as any other of our faculties. But 
should the hypothesis be a development of the lower 

19 



Cf)e CtJOlution of IBeliets 

forms into the higher, the end to which the changes 
directly or indirectly tend, which are the adaptation 
of the requirements of existence, we are yet con- 
fronted with the notion that these feelings are con- 
ducive to our welfare. Thus both theories contain a 
similar ultimate implication. 

In either case, then, we are obliged to conclude that 
the religious sentiment is directly created or else 
created by the slow action of natural causes; and 
whichever of these conclusions we adopt requires that 
the religious sentiment be treated with due respect. 

And there is one other consideration which should 
not be overlooked, which should be more especially 
pointed out to students of science, and that is this : 
While they are occupied with established truths, and 
are accustomed to regard things not already known 
as things to be discovered, they are liable to forget 
the truth that information, however extensive, can 
never satisfy inquiry. Possible knowledge, no mat- 
ter how extensive it may be, does not, and never can, 
fill the region of possible thought. Whatever the 
field of utmost discovery may be, there must ever 
arise in the infinite the question: What lies beyond? 

In all scientific problems there is presented to us 
the same difficulties that we find in thinking of a 
limit to space in a manner to exclude the idea of 
space lying outside of that limit, so that, on the other 
hand, no explanation can be sufficiently propounded 
to exclude the question : "What is the explanation of 
that explanation?" 

But we do understand that if science is regarded 
as a gradually increasing sphere, every addition tends 
only to bring it in a wider contact with nescience. 

From these conceptions we perceive that there must 
always remain two antithetical modes of mental ac- 
tion. In all future time, as at present, the human 

20 



C6e Ctjolutfon of TStlittg 



mind may occupy itself not only with ascertained 
phenomena and their relations, but also with that 
unascertained something which phenomena and their 
relations denote. Hence, we see that knowledge can- 
not monopolize consciousness. Then, if it must always 
be possible for the mind to dwell upon that which 
transcends knowledge, there will never cease to be in 
the minds of men a place for something in the nature 
of religion, since under all its forms religion is dis- 
tinguished from everything else in the fact that its 
subject matter is the thing which passes the sphere 
of experience. 

It does not matter how imtenable all the religious 
creeds may be, or how great the absurdities associated 
with them, nor however irrational the argument ren- 
dered in their defense, the verity which lies hidden in 
them should not be ignored. 

The omnipresence of religious beliefs, of one kind 
or other, forces the other probability that widely 
spread beliefs are not absolutely baseless. 

And we here, further find, a general fact of similar 
implication, that wherein nescience must always re- 
main the antithesis of science, there is a sphere for the 
exercise of this sentiment. 

In other words, where ignorance is the opposer of 
knowledge, there must always be a field for religious 
sentiment. Now we may be sure that religions, 
though none of them may be virtually true, they are 
all adumbrations of truth. 

Should we attempt to set forth any justification to 
the religious for religion would seem absurd, so, too, 
it would seem absurd to the scientific to undertake to 
defend science. 

Yet, it is just as necessary to do the last, as it is 
needful to do the first. If there are those who have 
contracted a repugnance toward religion from con- 

21 



C6e (lEtioIutfDtt of IBelfefg 

tempt of its follies and disgust of its corruptions, 
which causes them to overlook the verity contained in 
it; so, too, there is a class offended, to such a degree, 
by the destructive criticisms men of science make on 
religious tenets, which they have regarded essential, 
that the latter have, in general, acquired a stout preju- 
dice against science. And these are unprepared with 
any avowed reasons for their dislike. 

Having a faint remembrance of the rude shakes 
science has given to many of their cherished convic- 
tions, they suspicion that perhaps it may eventually 
uproot all that has been regarded as sacred, and hence 
this produces in their conceptions a certain inarticu- 
late dread. 

What is science? 

To the absurdity of the prejudiced against it, there 
need only be remarked that science is simply a higher 
development of common knowledge; and to repudi- 
ate science would have the same ultimate effect as to 
repudiate all knowledge along with it. 

Certainly the extremest bigot would not suspect the 
least harm to come from his observation that the sun 
rises earlier and sets later in summer than in winter; 
but he would sooner incline to think such an observa- 
tion a useful aid in the fulfilment of the necessary 
duties of life. 

But astronomy made with greater nicety is an or- 
ganized body of similar observations, extended to a 
larger number of the celestial objects, being so ana- 
lyzed in their real arrangement that they disclose a 
true relation of the heavenly bodies, dispelling any 
false conceptions we might otherwise entertain about 
them. And again that iron will rust when left in 
contact with moisture, that wood will burn, that long- 
kept viands may become putrid, the most timid sec- 
tarian will teach without alarm accruing to his relig- 

22 



Cfte (Ebolutfott of lBeIfef0 

ious principles, believing that they are useful truths 
to be known. 

But these are truths derived from a knowledge of 
chemistry, a systematized collection of such facts are 
ascertained with precision, and then classified and 
generalized in such a system that we are enabled to 
say with certainty concerning each simple or com- 
pound substance what change will occur in it under 
given conditions. And thus it is with all the sciences. 

Germinating out of the experiences of daily life, 
insensibly as they grow, they severally draw in re- 
moter, more numerous, and more complex experi- 
ences, among which they ascertain laws of dependence 
similar to those which make up our knowledge of the 
most familiar objects. 

It is impossible to draw a boundary line and then 
say here is where science begins. 

And as the field of common observation has for its 
function the guidance of conduct, so, too, the guid- 
ance of conduct has for its office the most abstract and 
recondite inquiries of science. 

Through the various modes of locomotion and the 
countless industrial processes which it has given to 
us, a knowledge of physics regulates more completely 
our social life than does the meagre acquaintance with 
the properties of surrounding bodies regulate the life 
of the savage. 

Through the effects of a knowledge of anatomy and 
physiology, on the practice of medicine and hygiene, 
our actions have been modified almost as much as they 
have been by a knowledge and acquaintance of the 
evils and benefits produced on our bodies by the en- 
vironing agencies. 

It is to be remembered, or at least should, that all 
science is prevision, and all foreknowledge ultimately 

23 



CSe (gtiolutfon of Igeliefg 

aids us in greater or less degree to achieve the good 
and avoid the bad. 

Just as certainly as an object lying in our path 
warns us against stumbling over it, just so certainly 
does those complicated and subtle perceptions, which 
constitute science, warn us against stumbling over the 
obstacles intervening in the pursuit of our distant 
ends. So, that the simplest as well as the most com- 
plex cognitions in form, being one in origin and func- 
tion, must be dealt with in the same manner. 

Our mental faculties, consistently, require that we 
receive the highest possible knowledge, limited in ex- 
tent only by our capabilities, or else reject that knowl- 
edge possessed by all of narrow compass. 

Between accepting our intelligence in its entirety, or 
repudiating the lowest intelligence which may be even 
possessed in common with brutes, there is no alter- 
native. 

Should it be asked if the laws governing science 
are true — a question which more immediately con- 
cerns our argument — would be much like asking 
whether the sun gives light. 

Because the theological party are conscious of how 
undeniably valid are most of the propositions of sci- 
ence, they regard it with much secret alarm. 

They know that mathematics, physics, astronomy, 
some of its larger divisions, have been for two thou- 
sand years of their growth subjected to the most rig- 
orous criticisms of successive generations; and for 
all this have become even more firmly established. 

Dissimilar to their own doctrines, which were once 
universally received, but have, age by age, been more 
frequently called into question, the theologians know 
that the doctrines of science, at first confined to a 
few scattered inquiries, have been slowly growing 

24 



C{)e Ciiolution of 15elief0 

into general acceptance, which, now, in great part, 
are beyond dispute. 

And, again, men of science throughout the world, 
they know, subject each other's results to the most 
rigid examination, searching every crevice for an 
error, which, if found, is mercilessly exposed and 
rejected as soon as discovered. 

And, again, they know that the daily verification 
of scientific predictions is still more conclusive testi- 
mony in the never ceasing triumphs of those arts 
which science guides. 

If we should regard such high authority as the 
credentials of the religionists with alienation, to them, 
it would seem the height of folly. Though the de- 
fenders of religion may find some excuse for this 
aHenation through the tone which scientific men adopt 
toward them, yet their excuse is one very inefficient. 

In favor of science, as in favor of their own views, 
the religionists must admit that shortcomings in the 
advocates is not a mark against what has been ad- 
vocated. 

If science has been judged by herself, from which 
she can only be verily judged, then the most per- 
verted intellect cannot fail to observe that she is truly 
worthy of all reverence. 

Admitting, or not admitting, that there has been 
any other revelation, we now have a veritable revela- 
tion in science. It is a continuous disclosure, through 
our endowed intelligence, of the established order of 
the infinite universe. And it becomes the duty of 
each and all of us to verify these facts and receive 
them with humility. 

Then, on both sides of this great controversy, truth 
must exist, or else the fallacies be rejected. 

Religion, everywhere present, as a weft running 
through human history, with an unbiased considera- 

25 



Cfte caolmfon of igeliefg 

tion of its general aspects, we are forced to conclude 
that it expresses some eternal fact. 

While, on the other hand, to say of science that it 
is an organized body of facts, ever growing, more com- 
pletely freed from errors, is almost a truism. 

In the reality of things, then, if both of them have 
valid bases, between them there must be a fundamen- 
tal harmony. 

It would be an incredible hypothesis to allege that 
there are two orders of truth in absolute and ever- 
lasting opposition. Such could only be supposed on 
some Manichean theory, and such a supposition is 
not even conceivable, which among us no one would 
attempt to avoid, however much his beliefs might be 
tainted by it. 

That religion is divine and science diabolical, as 
has been implied in many a clerical declamation, is a 
proposition which only the most vehement fanatic can 
cause himself to allege. 

Then, under a seeming antagonism to those who do 
not make this assertion, there lies hidden a complete 
harmony in their agreement. 

Then, to harmonize these differences, each side must 
recognize the claims of the other as standing for 
truths which are not to be ignored. Those who con- 
template the universe, from the religious point of 
view, should realize that this which we call science 
is one constituent of the infinite whole, and should be 
regarded as such with a sentiment similar to that 
which the remainder excites. 

While, on the other hand, those who contemplate 
the universe from a scientific point of view, must be 
conscious of the fact that this which receives the title 
of religion is similarly a constituent part of the great 
whole; and being, then, a part, must be viewed as a 
subject of science with no more prejudice than any 

26 



Cfie (gtiolution o( Ogeliefg 

other reality which may be subjected to a reasonable 
investigation. 

To strive to understand the other, it behooves each 
party with the conviction that each has something 
worthy of being understood; that when mutually rec- 
ognized will give the conviction that this something 
will be the basis of a complete reconciliation. How 
to obtain this something of reconciliation, then, be- 
comes the problem which we should perseveringly seek 
to solve. 

Such a reconciliation must not be a temporary ex- 
pedient, we must not find one of those compromises 
heard from time to time proposed, which the pro- 
posers must secretly feel are artificial and temporary, 
but to arrive at a real and permanent peace with them 
must be the paramount object. 

The thing to be sought is that ultimate truth which 
the members of both parties will avow with absolute 
sincerity, without the least mental reservation. 

On the common ground, where this is to be met, each 
one shall maintain himself, without any concessions 
or yielding to either side of something to be reas- 
serted. 

Our object, here, will be to determine some funda- 
mental verity which religion will not hesitate to as- 
sert with all possible emphasis in the absence of sci- 
ence, and then find that which science will assert with 
all emphasis in the absence of religion. This funda- 
mental verity must be in the defence of each, the ally 
of the other. In other words, to change our point 
of view, the aim must be to co-ordinate the seemingly 
opposed convictions which reHgion and science em- 
body. 

In the coalescence of antagonist ideas, with each 
containing its portion of truth, there always arfses a 
higher development. 

27 



C6e €tiDlutfon of T5tlit($ 

Such a combination being effected in geology, when 
the igneous and aqueous hypothesis were united, 
caused a rapid advance. And, at this time, we are be- 
ginning to progress in biology through the fusion of 
the doctrine of types, with the doctrine of adapta- 
tion. 

And, again, as Spencer says, "in psychology the ar- 
rested growth recommences, now that the disciples of 
Kant and those of Locke have their views both recog- 
nized in the theory that organized experiences pro- 
duce forms of thought." 

He further asserts that sociology is beginning to 
assume a positive character in the recognition of both 
the party of progress and the party of order, each 
holding a truth composing a needful complement to 
that held by the other; and the same must be on a 
more excellent balance with religion and science. 

In this we must look for conceptions that combine 
the conclusions of both, and from such a combination, 
we may expect the best results. 

That which must be attempted, in this analysis, is 
to obtain an understanding wherein science and relig- 
ion can express opposite sides of the same fact: one 
the near and visible, the other the remote and invis- 
ible, to achieve which, must necessarily modify our 
theory of fixed and established laws. 

The method, in seeking such a reconciliation, has 
heretofore been vaguely foreshadowed in the previous 
pages; although, before proceeding further, it will be 
in place to treat the question of method more defi- 
nitely. 

To see wherein religion and science coalesce, we 
must first know the direction to look and what the 
truth is likely to be, when sought. 

Then, in all religions, even the rudest, we have 
found a priori reason for believing that in them there 

28 



Ct)e OBtioIiition of Ogeliefg 

lies hidden a fundamental verity. We have also in- 
ferred that this fundamental verity is the element 
common to all religions, which still remains after all 
their discordant peculiarities have been cancelled. 
And it has been further inferred that this element is 
almost certain to be more abstract than any current 
religious doctrine. 

Now this brings us to the manifestation that science 
and religion can find a common ground only in some 
highly abstract proposition. 

No such dogmas as those of the trinitarian, or the 
unitarian, nor any such idea as that of propitiation, 
though common it may be to all religions, can serve 
as the desired basis of agreement, as these are not 
in the sphere of scientific recognition. 

Hence, to judge by analogy, we observe that the 
essential truth contained in religion is that most ab- 
stract element which pervades all its forms, and that 
this most abstract element is the only one in which 
religion is likely to agree with science. 

But, similarly, if we begin at the next opposite end 
and inquire what scientific truth can unite science and 
religion, it becomes at once manifest that science can 
take no cognizance of special religious doctrines, any 
more than religion can take cognizance of special sci- 
entific doctrines. 

The truth which science asserts, and religion in- 
dorses, is not that one furnished by mathematics ; nor 
can it be a physical truth; nor can it be a truth fur- 
nished by chemistry; it is not a truth belonging to 
any particular science. 

As a generalization of the phenomena of space, of 
time, of matter, or of force, cannot become a reli- 
gious conception. 

If such a conception exists anywhere in science it 
must be more general and underlying all of these. 

29 



^t)t €iJOlution of TBtlitts 

If there be a fact which science recognizes in com- 
mon with rehgion, it must be the fact from which the 
several branches of science diverge, as from their 
common root. 

Since these two great realities are constituents of 
the same mind, which we here assume that respond 
to different aspects of the same universe, there must 
be a fundamental harmony between them. Now we 
have good reason to conclude that the most abstract 
truth which religion contains, and the most abstract 
truth science contains, must be that one in which 
the two coalesce. The greatest fact to be found with- 
in our mental range must be this one of which we 
are in search. Uniting these positive and negative 
poles of human thought, we must find it the ultimate 
fact in our intelligence. 

The constituents of the matter constituting these 
facts concerns each and all of us more than anything 
else whatever. Though we are affected but little in 
a direct way, the view arrived at must determine our 
conceptions of the universe, of life, of human nature, 
and influence our ideas of right and wrong, thereby 
modifying our conduct. 

Should we reach that point of view, where the seem- 
ing discordance of rehgion and science disappears, 
and merge into one, which would cause a revolution 
of thought much more fruitful in beneficial conse- 
quences, is certainly worth an effort. 

Ending our preliminaries here, we will now address 
ourselves to this all-important inquiry. 



30 



Cfte OBtioIution of Ogeliefg 

CHAPTER II. 

THE DATUM OF BELIEF. 

To believe requires, for its genesis, the evolvement 
of action, being, or condition. 

Man's nature, being subject to natural conditions 
of the world, in which he is placed, can have no re- 
sponsibilities imposed for any of the impressions re- 
ceived from the external agencies which may aifect 
his sensory organism. 

Placed, as he is, under such conditions, with a nor- 
mal state of the visual and auditory functions, cannot 
be held responsible for what he believes to have been 
seen or heard, however true or false his impressions 
may have been. The resulting belief is valid or well- 
founded, erroneous, or of the illusive variety. If the 
illusive variety is accepted as a real and valid belief, 
it constitutes a delusion. Belief is a generic term 
which comprehends all the species belonging to a 
particular genus, also comprehending the genus as 
distinct from the species or other genus. 

'Though wine differs from other liquids in that it 
is the juice of a certain fruit, yet this is but a general 
or generic difference." — Watt's Logic. 

To believe is the mental act or operation of accept- 
ing as true any real or alleged fact or opinion on the 
evidence of testimony, or any proposition on the 
proof offered by reason. 

The term belief may be used for full and unwaver- 
ing acceptance of anything as true, or for an accept- 
ance weak and fluctuating, and may be for anything 
intermediate between the two. 

Such is opposed to the conviction produced by per- 
sonal observation or experience, which is stronger 
than that resting on testimony or reasoning. 

31 



Cfte (gaolution of IBtlittg 

In all belief there must be something intellectual, 
something thought of or conceived by the mind ; hence 
there has been a disposition to recognize the believing 
function one of the properties of our intelligence. 
Reasoning from analogy of the occurrences in that of 
past time, we beHeve the sun will rise and the tides 
flow to-morrow. This, undoubtedly, implies intellec- 
tual conceptions of the sun, his rising, and of the to- 
morrow, of the sea, its movements, etc. 

But what is the difference between the conceptions 
believed in, as these are, and other conceptions quite 
as clear and intelligible that are not believed ? As the 
notion that the fluctuation of the sea on the shores of 
Great Britain is the same as on the shores of Italy. 

To say that we have knowledge and evidence in 
the one case, and not in the other, is not to the pur- 
pose. 

What is desired, at this time, is to define the change 
that comes over us when a mere notion or supposition 
has passed into a real conviction, or when a dream 
or hypothesis comes to take possession of our minds 
as truth. 

As belief connects itself with our intelHgence, as 
now mentioned, it has action for its genesis and ulti- 
mate criterion. 

An individual with a strong, healthful physique, 
withal a normal appetite, possesses firm confidence 
that the food he has eaten will maintain his physical 
powers. From such a belief he exerts himself to ob- 
tain that food, and while hungry has the mental ela- 
tion arising from a near and certain prospect in relief 
and gratification. 

Advancing to a frozen stream and viewing the 
thickness of the ice, we may believe that it will bear 
to be trodden upon, and not hesitating to trust our 
safety to that which is believed walk across the river 

32 



Cl)e OBiJOlution of 15tlit(0 



of ice. And the same holds true in employing phy- 
sicians, attorneys, and we may say, in all of our busi- 
ness relations. The measure of this confidence is the 
measure of our readiness to act upon our convictions. 

The furthest cases remote in appearance from any 
action of our own have no other criterion. Affirma- 
tions without testimony or proof. As with testimony, 
we believe a great many things respecting the world, 
in the shape of general propositions and scientific 
statements which are so much beyond our sphere that 
we can have really no occasion to involve them in our 
procedure, or to have any sensible elation on their 
account. 

We, likewise, give credit to immeasurable events 
in past history, although the greater number of them 
never have any consequences as regards ourselves. 

But in such remoteness of interest the tests must 
apply, otherwise there can be no real conviction in 
any instance. A distinction has been made, however, 
by Aristotle, characterized between potentiality and 
actuaHty, which, in real occurrence, truly represents 
two different states of the mind. 

We understand what it is to be in the state or con- 
dition of preparedness to act while an emergency is 
still at a distance uncertain, or before it may have 
arisen. An individual may have the ability or poten- 
tial mode of mind to drink when it has been excited 
by extreme thirst, but he may be debarred from the 
act, in the absence of the necessary supply of water 
to assuage his thirst, wherein the potentiality is pres- 
ent. Yet, he has the state of mind we call being ready 
to act upon the presentation of the opportunity. 

Otherwise, the validity of a conviction is always 
questionable unless proven by analysis. 

Often we deceive ourselves and others whether our 

33 



Cfte 6faolution of ^elicfg 

potentiality or preparedness is in some matter of truth 
or falsehood. 

Many people acquiesce in the tacit acceptance of 
propositions which never became the subject of any 
real or practical action. 

A belief of this nature, falsely so called, confuses 
the line of demarcation iDetween a mere intellectual 
notion and a state of credence or conviction. The 
mass of mankind give acceptance to the statements of 
this nature. The facts of science and history, which 
they are accustomed to hear from the better informed 
classes they commit, without being a little disposed, 
such facts to their serious interests and do not dispute 
the statements. 

And the same holds true with the religious creeds 
handed down from parent to child. 

Some believe in the full import of the term; while 
others, opposing no negative in any way, never 
perform any actions, or entertain either hope or fears, 
as a consequence of the supposed acceptance of their 
father's religion, their belief must be a nonentity. 

Our environments, the quantity and quality of in- 
struction and education, are all influences which de- 
termine us to adopt some grounds of action and ele- 
ments of hope or depression in preference to others. 

But the proper course to pursue in all cases is that 
line which leads to the obtainment of evidence of 
which two kinds are recorded by some schools, namely, 
experience and intuition, while some recognize ex- 
perience alone and reject intuition as a sufficient 
foundation of belief. 

It is undeniable that many circumstances are con- 
ducive to the sources of men's convictions and are 
credited without any reference to experience; the ex- 
istence of superstitions is an example. 

And, again, the partialities arising out of our lik- 

34 



Cl)e OBiJOlution of TStlitt$ 



ings to particular persons and the undue depreciation 
of the merits of those whom we disHke, present in- 
stances equally removed from the criterion of ex- 
perience. 

It is, therefore, evident that men do not conform in 
their acts to such a criterion, even granting they should 
do so. 

The practice of life points to experience as the check 
to fallacious believing. Finding on trial that another 
man's feelings, under the same circumstances, differ 
from ours very much, we stand corrected ; and, there- 
fore, are perhaps wiser in the future. 

Just so in science ; experiment is the ultimate canon 
of truth. 

Though the introduction of experiment distinguishes 
the modern method of investigating nature from that 
of ancient times and the middle ages ; yet it is by this 
means of investigation that the laws of physical chem- 
istry and other sciences have made such rapid develop- 
ment in the evolution of truth in the last two centuries. 

Then, there is that other class of beliefs which re- 
fers to matters altogether beyond experience; such 
as the metaphysical doctrine of the infinite. 

Whether the intuitive be a source of authentic be- 
liefs, may be a matter of doubt, but there is no doubt 
as to its being a genuine source of real convictions. 
Men from the first have a decided tendency to believe 
that the present state of things will continue, and that 
the past resembles the present. 

The primitive impulse to consider other men's minds 
as exactly similar to our own has such indelible ex- 
istence that it is difficult for us to disregard. 

It is the tendency of the uncultured to over-gener- 
alize, in which case experience comes as a corrective, 
to which it is often very painful to submit. 

35 



Cl)e (JBtoolution of 15eliefs 

There is a doctrine current that the law of causa- 
tion has an authority derived from such sources a 
priori, as they are called, which, being wholly beyond 
experience, are grounded primarily in the internal im- 
pulses of the human mind and are all open to one 
common remark. This is, that it must be conceded 
that at least some intuitive beliefs are invalid, seeing 
that we are obliged to reject a greater or less number 
because they are not found valid by the test of ex- 
perience. 

But if any have to be rejected because of the varia- 
bility of the intuitive test, why not reject all; then 
what is the criterion, apart from experience which 
can be used for discriminating those that wx are to 
retain ? 

Moreover, the intuitive tendencies are exceedingly 
various in men, and all cannot be equally true. 

Belief from the various sources of testimony is, in 
effect, partly founded on an intuitive tendency and 
partly on experience. 

Credulity being the primitive phase of our nature, 
we at first believe whatever is told to us, but experi- 
ence soon obtained from untrue statements causes us 
to become less credulous, and in time we learn to re- 
ceive testimony under some circumstances, and from 
some people, and not in all cases indiscriminately. 

Before the birth of science, and in minds debarred 
from scientific training, the greatest security for truth 
has been practice. No practical end in this world can 
be secured without observing the natural conditions. 
We must first estimate the force of the current in 
order to be able to build a rampart that will stand. 

More than anything else, science is the most per- 
fect embodiment of truth, impressing the mind with 
the nature of evidence, with the labor and precautions 
necessary to prove a thing. It stands as the ultimate 

36 



C6e €bolmion o( Igeliefg 

corrective to the natural man in receiving unaccred- 
ited facts and conclusions. 

By the application of scientific laws, we exemplify 
the devices for establishing a fact, or establishing other 
laws under every variety of circumstance. 

Such laws sap the credit of everything that is af- 
firmed without first being properly attested. 

The untrained mind confounds general and par- 
ticular, co-ordinate and subordinate, and has no means 
by which he can take the best grasp of the method of 
unfolding a subject from the simple to the complex. 
The scientific man's test is the greatest of our knowl- 
edge, being the test of practical fulfilment, just in 
proportion to our regard for truth, and our means for 
ascertaining what is true, is our power over the ma- 
terial and moral world. 

Lord Brougham holds, that man is not responsible 
for anything over which he has no control ; therefore, 
he is not accountable for his belief. 

When this assertion is interpreted, it must mean 
that man's belief, being involuntary, he is not punish- 
able or censurable for it, for he knows to some ex- 
tent that the will does influence belief. The question 
then arises : How far is belief a voluntary function ? 

We have already noticed that opening the eyes is 
a voluntary act, but what a man sees when they are 
opened is not within his power. 

Hearing a certain argument, we might irresistibly 
incline to our side, but if living in a country where 
the adhesion to that side is criminal and severely pun- 
ished, we might be deterred from hearing or reading 
anything in its favor. To such an extent the adoption 
of a belief is voluntary. 

In those countries and ages, when the offering of re- 
ward and the penalty of punishment were sufficient 

3Z 



Cfte Ct^olution of IBclitfs 

to cause one creed to prevail and not another, there 
has been no descent from the estabHshed reHgion. 

By this means the mass of the people have been de- 
barred from knowing any other opinions, and have of 
necessity become conscientiously united to the creed 
of their education. 

The majority of mankind not being sufficient judges 
of themselves, on religious and political creeds, are led 
by tradition and education to accept as true the in- 
evitable infliction of a punishment to control men's 
beliefs and not merely their professions. Where the 
simplest and the wisest can equally judge, as in mat- 
ters of daily practice, the case is altogether different. 

No man, by the severity of threat, can be induced 
into the state of mind to believe that his night's rest 
was hurtful to him ; from motives he might be induced 
to say so, but he would never act out his forced af- 
firmation, and would tacitly, if not otherwise, show 
that he does not believe it. 

If all beliefs are beyond the powers of external 
motives, that rewards and punishments can cause 
nothing more than outward conformity, we must pro- 
nounce it erroneous. 

It cannot be conceded in all cases that motives have 
a direct influence on man's convictions, yet the indi- 
rect influence is so great as to produce the unanimity 
of whole nations for centuries in some one creed. 

However, if it should be admitted that such indirect 
means should not be permitted to sway men's convic- 
tions, we are then free to judge that this is a way to 
affirm the right of free thought and inquiry to all 
mankind, and the iniquity of employing force on such 
matters. 

But there is a nucleus of reality in all religions. 

We must admit the general abstract probability that 
a falsity often has a nucleus of reality, yet, there are 

38 



Cf)e (gtiolution of IStlitts 

those in contact with antagonism, who do not bear 
this abstract probabiHty in mind, when passing judg- 
ment on the opinions of others. 

They not only forget that there is an element of 
sacredness in things evil, but that there is often an 
element of truth in things erroneous. 

A belief eventually proven to be grossly at vari- 
ance with fact is set aside with indignation or con- 
tempt. But has there not been something in it to 
commend it to men's mind, the acceptance of which 
was in correspondence with their experiences? 

This correspondence may have been very limited 
or vague, but still it represents a correspondence. 

In nearly all observed instances the absurdest re- 
ports may be traced to actual ocurrences, and the pre- 
posterous misrepresentation of them would never have 
existed had there been no actual occurrences. 

Though the refracting medium of rumor through 
which the distorted and magnified image has been 
transmitted is entirely dissimilar to the reality, yet 
in the absence of the reality there could not have been 
a distorted or magnified image. 

Entirely wrong as human beliefs in general may 
seem to be, the implication is that they grew out of 
actual experiences, which originally contained, and 
perhaps still contain, some amount of verity. 

This we may safely assume in the case of beliefs 
which are widely diffused and have existed for a long 
time, and in those that are quite perennial and uni- 
versal. 

If it were possible in our investigation to arrive at 
definite views on this matter, they would be extremely 
useful; but, being forced to admit that life is impos- 
sible without a certain agreement between internal 
convictions and external circumstances, we are forced 
to the view that the probabilities are always in favor 

39 



Cfje (StJOlutfon of a5elief0 

of the truth of a conviction, and that the convictions 
entertained by many minds are the most likely to 
have some foundation. 

It has often been urged that many widely diffused 
beliefs have been received on authority, that in these 
the elimination of individual errors of thought must 
furnish to the resulting judgment an additional value; 
but those who entertain such ideas use no means of 
verification, and hence we infer that the multitude of 
adherents adds very little to the probabiHty of a be- 
lief. 

But from another point of view this is not true. 
A belief that gains general reception without crit- 
ical examination is thereby proven to have a general 
congruity with the various other beliefs of those who 
receive it, and so far as the various other beliefs are 
based on observation and judgment, they give an 
indirect warrant to those with which they harmonize. 
This warrant may be of small value, but still it is of 
some value. 

To avoid the bias which expresses such dogmas as 
"what every one says must be true," simply because 
*'the voice of the people is the voice of God," we 
must, by forming something similar to a general 
theory of current opinions, be capable of neither over- 
estimating nor underestimating their worth. 

To arrive at correct judgments on disputed ques- 
tions much depends on the attitude of mind we as- 
sume while taking part in the controversy, and for 
the preservation of the right attitude it is needful for 
us to bear in mind how true and yet, again, how un- 
true are the average of human beliefs. 

The fact that in the past majorities have been 
wrong must not cause us to accept the complimentary 
fact that majorities have not been entirely wrong. 
The avoidance of these extremes is prerequisite tO 

40 



Cfie OBtooIution of ISelfefg 



catholic thinking, which is extremely necessary for us 
to provide a safeguard against, by making a valua- 
tion of opinions in the abstract. 

Spencer further says to do this, we must ascer- 
tain the nature of the relations that exist between 
opinions and facts. We will now do so with some of 
those beliefs which under various forms have pre- 
vailed among all nations in all times. 

Children, who naturally possess a primitive state of 
the mind, think of a shadow as an entity, especially 
those of uncivilized countries, as do adults, even, in 
our enlightened countries. We have met persons 
who have the idea that a shadow is a material thing. 

On ignoring acquired knowledge we will see this 
belief to be quite natural. 

A thing having outlines, differing in color from 
surrounding things, and a thing which moves, is in 
other cases a reality. Then why is the shadow not a 
reality ? 

The conception that it is onlv the negation of light 
cannot be conceived until the behavior of light is in 
some degree understood. Among us we have uncul- 
tured people, who regard a shadow as naturally at- 
tending an object exposed to Hght as not being any- 
thing real, but they do not stop to reason that light 
emanating in straight lines necessarily leaves unlighted 
spaces behind opaque bodies. 

They set aside inquiry by the verbal answer, "that 
it is only a shadow." This repeated explanation, 
given in times past and at present, stops wonder and 
further thought. 

The uneducated primitive man necessarily believes a 
shadow to be an actual existence, which belongs to 
the person casting it. He simply accepts this belief. 

He cannot see it in cloudy weather, but in the ab- 
sence of physical laws of interpretation, he proves that 

41 



Cfie ©tiolutfon of IBtlitts 

his attendant comes out only on bright days and 
nights. 

Whenever the sun or moon is visible he sees his 
attendant likeness now before, now behind, now by 
his side, which lengthens and shortens as the ground 
inclines, and which becomes distorted as he passes by 
very irregular surfaces. 

He observes, also, this shadow which bears such 
a close resemblance to him and its approximate sep- 
arateness are shown only when he stands up; when 
he lies down it seems to partially merge into him and 
disappear. 

But such an observation confirms his impression of 
its reality. 

In minds just beginning to generalize, shadows are 
conceived as existences belonging to and capable of 
separation from material things. 

And that such is the case is abundantly proven by 
history. Some primitive or savage people regard 
their shadows as their souls, while others are afraid 
of their shadows, possibly thinking that the shadows 
bear witness and watch all their actions. 

The community of meaning which unallied lanx 
guages betray between shadow and spirit, show us the 
same thing: that shadows are intangible and some- 
times invisible existences, belonging to their tangible 
correlatives, furnishes material for the idea of the 
apparent and unapparent states of being and the du- 
ality of things. 

If the rude resemblance of a shadow bears to a 
person casting it the idea of a second entity, so much 
more will a reflection. From these facts the notion, 
then, arises that an existence can be seen but not 
felt. 

In the absence, then, of any knowledge of the laws 
of physics and authoritative statement, that the re- 

42 



Cfie OBtJOIution of 'Beliefs 

flection is just an appearance, it is inevitably taken 
for a reality belonging to the person whose traits it 
simulates. 

At night the primitive man sees clouds and stars 
deep down in a pool of water as bright as those over- 
head. To him the duplicates yield a verification of 
certain other beliefs that there are two places for the 
stars which go below during the day to where the 
others stay. 

This generates a behef that each person has a dupli- 
cate, usually unseen, but which may be seen on going 
to the water and looking in it. 

This is not a priori inference, but it is verified by 
facts. The Fijians say in addition to the dark spirit, 
that goes to Hades, there is another which is reflected 
in water. 

The most consistent belief is now in the existence of 
two spirits, for are not men's shadows and reflections 
two separate entities? They are coexistent with one 
another and himself. Both of these move when he 
moves. Clearly they belong to him, but are inde- 
pendent; they may both be absent at the same time, 
or either present in the absence of the other. 

In these it must be understood that the primitive 
man thinks of existences as real, which have their 
visible and invisible states, and confirms his belief in 
a duality. 

And, again, the physical laws of an echo are not 
framed in the primitive man's mind, hence he has no 
knowledge of the reflection of the waves producing 
sound. Indeed, how many of our own people know 
anything about sound waves? 

Should a responsive shout subsequently always come 
to a passer-by at a certain spot, the inference would 
be that in this place there dwelt one of these invisible 

43 



CSe (gtiolution of TBtlitls 

forms : a man who had passed into an invisible state, 
or who could become invisible when sought. 

There would even now be an explanation that echoes 
are caused by unseen beings, only for the spread of 
knowledge, which fact has modified the mode of 
thought throughout all classes, producing everywhere 
a readiness to accept what we may call natural in- 
terpretations to natural occurrences, and to further 
assume that there are natural interpretations to nat- 
ural occurrences not comprehended. The fact, given 
from the evidences of these cases, which will not be 
written in this connection, confirms the inference that, 
in the absence of physical explanation, an echo is con- 
ceived as the voice of some one who avoids being 
seen. Then once more, we have duality implied, — an 
invisible state as well as a visible state. 

Nature thus presents multitudinous cases of arbi- 
trary change to minds unsupplied with ideas other 
than their own. On earth and in the sky, things ap- 
pear and disappear, but why they do was not known. 
Here, on the surface and there in the ground, are 
things which have been transmuted in substance, 
changed from flesh to stone, from wood to flint. 

Everywhere, living bodies exemplify metamorpho- 
sis, marvelous to the instructed, but to the primitive 
man incomprehensible. 

The conception of such interchangeable phenom- 
ena as shadows, reflections and echoes impresses him 
with the idea of two or more states of existence. If 
these were not elaborated during civilization, the 
truths acquired insensibly during early life, which 
we accept as self-evident, we would see that the ideas 
formed by the primitive man are naturally and in- 
evitably formed. Mental associations, until experi- 
ences have been systematized, necessitates the idea of 

44 



C!)e 6toolution of 'Belief? 



transmutation, metamorphosis and duality, on which 
no restraints are put. 

To have the right conception of primitive thought, 
we are necessitated in comparing the systems found 
in many societies by observing its developed forms; 
by understanding primitive conduct, by obtaining clear 
conceptions of the way in which social organization is 
effected by the way man's emotions are guided by his 
beliefs. 

Conceptions of general facts being derived from 
general experiences of particular facts coming later, 
are deficient in the primitive man. 

However, the tacit or avowed belief that the prim- 
itive man thinks that there is life in things which are 
not living is, clearly, an untenable belief. 

Though to him the motions of a watch seem spon- 
taneous, to which he quite naturally ascribes life. 

But excluding those things which the advanced arts 
have made simulating living things, to confine our- 
selves to his conceptions of those natural objects 
around him, we must conclude that his classification 
of animate and inanimate objects is substantially cor- 
rect. 

The difference between the two growing ever more 
definite in consciousness, as intelligences evolve, must 
be in him more definite than in all lower animals. 
To suppose, without cause, that he begins to confound 
them would be to suppose the process of evolution 
inverted. 

Again, to refer to the primitive man's belief in an- 
other self, belonging to him, harmonizes with all those 
illustrations of duality furnished by things around 
him, and equally harmonizes with all those multi- 
tudinous cases in which things pass from visible to 
invisible states and back again. In these comparisons 
there is shown to him a relationship between his 

45 



Cf)e €i)DlutiOtt of 15tlit(^ 

own double and the doubles of other objects. For 
have not these objects their shadows, as he has? Does 
his shadow not become invisible at night? Is it not 
obvious, then, that this shadow which in the day ac- 
companies his body is that other self which wanders 
away at night and has adventures? 

The proof that this is the conception, actually 
formed by savages regarding dreams, comes from all 
quarters, and survives after considerable advances in 
civilization have been made. 

In proof of this many illustrations could be cited, 
but it will be sufficient to mention only one instance. 
The North American Indians in general thought that 
there were duplicate souls, one of which remains in 
,the body, while the other is free to depart on ex- 
cursions during sleep; while we are informed that 
the Greenlanders believe that the soul can forsake the 
body during sleep. The New Zealanders believe that 
during sleep the mind leaves the body, and that 
dreams are the objects seen during its wanderings. 

Remembering this, we must further ask what hap- 
pens when a dream is narrated by a savage. Even 
should we suppose that he suspects some distinction 
between ideal actions and real actions, his undevel- 
oped language is not sufficient to enable him to ex- 
press the distinction. 

What, then, is the resulting notion? The sleeper 
on awakening recalls various occurrences, and repeats 
them to others. He believes that he has been some- 
where else; witnesses affirm that he has not; and 
their testimony is verified by finding himself where 
he was when he went to sleep. The simple belief ac- 
cepted is both that he has remained and that he has 
been away. He believes that he has two individual- 
ities, one of which leaves the other and presently re- 

46 



Cfie (gtiolution of ^eliefg 

turns. He, too, has a double existence not much dif- 
ferent from many other things. 

The Dyaks have the conviction that the soul during 
sleep goes on expeditions of its own, and sees, hears 
and talks. Similarly it is beHeved by others that the 
spirit of a man who still lives will leave the body to 
trouble others when asleep. 

And even with the highly developed social condition 
of the Peruvians, they held to the belief that the soul 
leaves the body while it is sleeping, the soul not be- 
ing able to sleep while the body does, it sees the things 
manifested in our dreams. 

And with the primitive Jews, sleep was looked upon 
as a form of death, when the soul departed the 
body, but was restored again in awakening. Occurring 
rarely, perhaps, somnambulism served, when it did 
occur, to confirm this interpretation. 

For, to the uncritical, a sleep-walker seems to be 
exemplifying that activity during sleep which the 
primitive conception of dreams implies. 

This is evidence to the somnambulist that he may 
lead an active Hfe during sleep, which is conclusive 
proof to those who saw him, that men rarely go away 
during sleep; that the things are done they dreamed 
of doing, yet, they find themselves where they laid 
down on awakening. The primitive man, being un- 
able to deny the evidence that he wanders during 
sleep, takes his strange experience in verification of 
the current belief, without dwelling on the inconsist- 
ency. When we consider what tradition, with its ex- 
aggerations, is likely to make of these abnormal phe- 
nomena, now and then occurring, we shall see that 
the primitive interpretation of dreams must receive 
from them strong support. 

Along with these there goes the belief that the 
persons dreamed about were really present. If the 

4Z 



C&e ©bolution of ^Beliefs 



dreamer believes his own actions to be real, he as- 
cribes reality to whatever he saw. Many peoples in 
past ages there were who believed that their dreams 
were real, and obeyed their injunctions. The Mala- 
gasa have a religious regard for dreams, and believe 
that the good demon comes and tells them in their 
dreams when they ought to do a thing or to warn 
them of some danger. 

We read, in like manner, that the soul of Patroclus 
appeared to Achilles when asleep "in all things simi- 
lar to himself," saying: "Bury me soon that I may 
pass the gates of Hades," and when grasped at, "like 
smoke vanished with a shriek," the appearance being 
accepted by Achilles as a reality and its injunction 
as imperative. 

The like is shown us by the Hebrew writings. When 
we read that "God came to Abimelech in a dream at 
night," that the Lord came and stood and called as at 
other times, "Samuel, Samuel," we see an equally un- 
hesitating belief in an equally objective reality. 

But during the slow process of civilization this 
faith has been losing ground, and even yet survives, 
as is proven by the stories told of the people who, 
when just dead, appeared to distant relations, to un- 
derstand how inevitably the primitive man conceives 
as real the dream-personages we know to be ideal, is 
to conceive ourselves decivilized, with an absence of 
faculty, knowledge lost, language vague and skep- 
ticism absent. 

Qearly, then, the acceptance of dream-activities as 
real activities, strengthens allied misconceptions other- 
wise generated. It strengthens them both negatively 
and positively. It discredits those waking experi- 
ences from which right beliefs are to be drawn; and 
it yields support to those waking experiences which 
express wrong beliefs. 

48 



Cfte ggtooltttion of TStlit($ 

That the primitive man's conception of dreaming is 
natural will now be obvious. 

Ihe current interpretation of dreams, implies the 
hypothesis of mind as a distinct entity ; the hypoth- 
esis of mind as a distinct entity, cannot exist before 
the experiences suggesting it; the experiences sug- 
gesting this are the dream experiences, which seem 
to imply the existence of two entities. The original 
supposition was that the second entity differs from the 
first, simply, in being absent at night and active while 
the other is at rest. 

This brings to our view the crude ideas of the prim^ 
itive mind which show the origin in a general belief of 
immortality. 

Spencer has thoroughly demonstrated the facts 
that the expressions which, with us, become figura- 
tive, become with men in lower states of civiliza- 
tion, literal descriptions. As, for example, the term 
applied by southern AustraHans to one who is un- 
conscious means without soul; and we say that such 
a one is inanimate. Similarly, though our thoughts 
respecting a debilitated person are no longer simi- 
lar to those of the savage, yet the words we use to 
iconvey them have the same original meaning. We 
speak of him as having lost his spirit. 

Among some of these strange derivative beliefs, 
there is that of the Greenlanders, who think that the 
soul can go astray out of the body for a considera- 
ble time. Some even pretend that when going on a 
long journey they can leave their souls at home, and 
yet, remain sound and healthy. 

The beliefs just instanced, like those instanced in 
foregoing chapters, carry us somewhat beyond the 
mark. 

Evolution has now given to the superstitions we 

49 



Cfte Ctoolution of 'Beliefs 

meet, more specific characters than had the initial ideas 
out of which they grew. 

In these, as in the others heretofore, the reader is 
requested to ignore the specialties of the interpreta- 
tions and recognize the trait common to them. 

The fact now to be observed is that the abnor- 
mal insensibilities once and again witnessed by the 
savage are inevitably interpreted in the same gen- 
eral manner as the normal insensibility daily wit- 
nessed, the two interpretations supporting each other. 

The primitive man sees various deviations of the in- 
sensible state and various degrees of the insensibility. 
There is the doze in which the dropping of the head 
on the breast is followed by instant waking; 
there is the ordinary sleep, ending in a few minutes 
or continuing many hours, and varying in profundity 
from a state broken by a slight sound to a state not 
broken by shouts and shakes; there is lethargy, in 
which slumber is still longer and the waking short 
and imperfect ; there is swoon, perhaps lasting a few 
seconds or perhaps lasting hours, from which the pa- 
tient now seems brought back to himself by repeated 
calls, and now obstinately stays away; and there are 
the states of unconsciousness caused by apoplexy, cat- 
alepsy, ecstacy, similar in respects to the long per- 
sistence of insensibility, though dissimilar in respects 
of the accounts the patient gives on returning to 
himself. 

Further these several comatose states differ as end- 
ing, sometimes in revival, and sometimes in acquies- 
cence, which becomes complete and indefinitely con- 
tinued ; the other self remaining absent so long that 
the body grows cold. 

And again there are the insensibilities most sig- 
nificant of all, which follow blows. 

Though for other losses of consciousness the savage 

SO 



Cfte €tJDlutiott of 15elief0 



saw no antecedents, yet for each of these the ante- 
cedent was the act of the enemy. And this act of the 
antecedent produced various results. Now the in- 
jured man shortly "returned to consciousness," and 
was not absent any more. 

In another instance he returned only after a long 
time, and presently his body was deserted indefinitely. 
Last, instead of those temporary returns followed by 
a final absence, there sometimes occurred cases in 
which a violent blow caused continuous absence from 
the first; the other self never returned. 

In the next higher step or evolution of the prim- 
itive man's mind, we have for our consideration his 
ideas of death and resurrection. The assumption that 
natural death is easily distinguishable from Hfe, and 
that it has always been known as at present, are un- 
doubtedly erroneous assumptions. 

Nothing is more certain than death; but there are 
times when there is not anything more uncertain than 
its reality. Numerous instances have been recorded 
of persons being prematurely buried or at the verge 
of the grave before it was discovered that life still 
remained. 

If we, with all the experience bequeathed by civili- 
zation, cannot in certain instances be sure that revival 
will take place, in such, what judgments are to be 
expected from the primitive man? Until facts have 
proven it, he cannot know that this permanent quies- 
cence is the necessary termination to the state of 
activity; and his wandering, predatory life, keeps out 
of view most of the evidence which establishes this 
truth. 

Being circumstanced in this wise, what ideas does 
the primitive man form of death? 

We will now observe the course of his thought and 
the resulting conduct. 

51 



C!)e (JBboIution of 'Beliefs 



The insensibilities he witnesses are various, both 
in length and degree. He observes that reanimation 
comes in the vast majority of them — thus generally- 
after sleep, frequently after swoon, occasionally after 
coma, now and then after wounds or blows. 

Then, why will not reanimation follow this other 
form of insensibility? 

The experience that revival occurs often unexpect- 
edly strengthens the inference in reanimation. 

One in course of being buried, or one about to be 
burned, suddenly returns to consciousness. 

This the savage does not use as proof that the man 
who was supposed to be dead was not dead; but it 
furnishes an additional element of evidence to con- 
vince him that the insensibility of death is similar to 
all the other insensibilities, which were only tem- 
porary. Even were the primitive man critical, instead 
of being incapable of criticism, the facts would go 
far to justify his belief that in these cases reanimation 
has been only longer postponed. 

And we have evidence substantiating the inference 
that such a confusion actually exists. 

The Todas entertain a lingering hope until putre- 
faction commences, that reanimation may take place. 

Some tribes sew their dead in a leather sack, while 
some others tie their limbs fast that the deceased may 
not be able to get up to infest his friends by his 
ghostly visits. 

What are the various acts prompted by the belief, 
that the dead man returns to life? 

Some savages beat their dead with thorny twigs, 
others abuse the dead and dying for going away, 
while some people talk to the corpse, primarily with 
the view of inducing the wandering duplicate to re- 
turn, but otherwise for purposes of propitiation. 

Many different savage tribes interrogate the dead 

52 



C&e (gtoolution of ^eliefg 

person as to the cause of his death. And we read 
of instances where priests have been begged by the 
friends to get the dead man to speak and confess his 
sins which caused death. Others will question the 
deceased for two or three hours why they died. 

Even by the early Hebrews "it was believed that a 
dead man could hear anything." 

Various savages bring things to the grave, such 
as the belongings used by the deceased when he was 
living. Some sacrifice to the deceased, telling them 
the name of the cow killed, leave food and furs or 
other clothing, stating to the dead that there as some- 
thing to eat and something to keep you warm. 

As implied in many cases, this behavior, originally 
adopted towards those just dead, extends to those 
dead some time. 

After learning that death is believed to be one 
form of quiescent life, these proceedings no longer 
appear so absurd. Beginning with the call, which 
wakes the sleeper, sometimes seems effectual in reviv- 
ing one who has swooned. 

Such a speaking to the dead develops in various 
directions. It continues to be a custom even where 
immediate reanimation is not expected. 

Occasionally in a trance the patient swallows mor- 
sels put into his mouth. Whether or not such an ex- 
perience led to the practice of giving the corpse food, 
or in some instances actually feeding it, there exists 
an implied belief that death is an allied state, but of 
long-suspended animation. 

Mostly, however, it is the purpose of the friends to 
furnish the available suppHes whenever the deceased 
may need them. He is often supplied with viands 
and wine for the departed spirit, while the body is 
awaiting burial. 

The general custom of placing provisions in or 

53 



Cf)e OBtJOIutiott of 'Belief 



upon the grave has been so prevalent that no at- 
tempt here will be made to enumerate the cases be- 
fore me. 

The custom holds even in cases of cremation. This 
continued practice of furnishing food indicates a past 
time when reanimation was conceived literally. 

What is the Hmit of the time for the return of the 
other self? The primitive man cannot say. The an- 
swer being at least doubtful, he takes the safe course 
and repeats the supplies of food. 

The aboriginal Peruvians used to open the tombs of 
the deceased to supply them with food and clothing, 
which was placed in them. 

At festivals the Yucas brought provisions, say- 
ing, ''When you were alive, you used to eat and 
drink of this ; may your soul now receive it and feed 
on the same wheresoever you may be." 

To favor annihilation of the departed and to pre- 
vent them from coming back to trouble the living, 
some savages feed the corpse to various animals, 
while the Matiamba negresses believe that throw- 
ing their dead husbands in the water drowns their 
souls, which would otherwise give them trouble. 

In other cases where the aim is not to insure an- 
nihilation of the departed, but to further his well- 
being, anxiety is shown toward protecting the corpse 
against maltreatment. Such anxiety prompts devices 
which varies according to the views taken of the de- 
ceased's state of existence. 

In some cases while the bodies were exposed to be 
devoured by the wolves or other animals, in other 
cases security was sought in a secluded burial place, 
especially when priests were buried. 

River channels have been changed to find a sepul- 
chre for a dead king or priest, which has been 

54 



Ctie (gaolutfott of nstlitf^ 

changed back to the natural channel after burial of 
the corpse. 

Some buried on high mountains, others exposed 
the dead bodies on high trees, but in America we 
see betrayed the desire to shield the bodies from pres- 
sure which is implied in the use of raised stages. By 
placing the dead upon these they were also kept out 
of the way of dogs, wolves or any other animals. 

In those countries and times^ when we find less 
recognition of any sensitiveness in the dead to pres- 
sure or want of air, there is simply a recognition of 
need for preventing destruction of the body by ani- 
mals or men. This is the assigned motive for cover- 
ing the corpse. 

Often, the relatives of the deceased from real or 
professed affection, and others from fear of what 
he may do when his double returns, joined in aug- 
menting the protective mass. By passing relatives 
stones were, in many instances, continually added to 
the heap; in proportion as the deceased was loved, 
reverenced or dreaded, the process was still carried 
further. 

Hence, an increasing of the heap for protective 
purposes brings about an increasing of it as a mark 
of honor or power. Thus the raised mounds of earth 
corresponding in height with the importance of the 
deceased. 

So that, beginning with the small mound neces- 
sarily resulting from the displacement of earth by 
the buried body, we are brought at length to such 
structures as the Egyptian pyramids. AH of these 
customs originated in the wish to preserve the body 
from injuries hindering resuscitation. 

Some further funeral rites, indirectly implying the 
belief in resurrection, must be added, partly because 
they lead to certain customs hereafter to be explained. 

55 



CSe (gbolutfon of IgeUefg 

I mean to the marks of bodily mutilations, which in so 
many cases are marks of mourning. Along with the 
belief that reanimation will be prevented if the other 
self finds a mutilated body, or none at all, there goes 
the belief that to insure reanimation putrefaction 
must be prevented. 

This is an idea which has left no traces among men 
in low states of savagery, but is probably due to the 
fact that no methods to arrest decomposition have 
been discovered by them. But we have evidence that 
the idea arises and leads to actions among the more 
advanced races. Proof that similar ideas suggested 
like practices of the ancient Egyptians have been men- 
tioned. 

With such indications to guide us, we cannot doubt 
the meaning of the trouble to prevent decay. When 
we read that, in some places, the bodies are smoked, 
while elsewhere they are dried on a slow fire, we can 
at once understand the implied meaning. 

Another instance of a primitive belief in immor- 
tality, is furnished by the Iliad concerning the funeral 
of Patroclus, whose body the Myrmidones heaped 
with their hair. To assure Patroclus, that he would 
join him afterward, Achilles placed a golden lock in 
the hand of the corpse. 

A portion of the body is given as symbolizing a 
gift of the whole. And such acts of affection, or 
mode of propitiation, prevails generally among unciv- 
ilized races. 

That the significance of this rite as a sign of subor- 
dination, which is made to propitiate the presently 
reviving dead, is shown by sundry facts. 

And, similarly, in their meanings are the accom- 
panying self-bleedings, gashings and amputations. 
Blood and other portions of the body were offered in 
religious sacrifice, which in some countries was sprin- 

S6 



Cfje dBboIutiott of 'Beliefs 



kled on the tombs of deceased kings to obtain aid 
of their ghosts. The conviction that death is a long- 
suspended animation is impHed in all these various ob- 
servances. 

The ideas of a belief in reanimation exist in various 
forms. In Polynesia, there is found among the be- 
liefs of the Fijians, one showing a transition between 
the primitive idea of a renewed ordinary life, and the 
idea of another life elsewhere. These people think 
that death became universal because the children of 
the first man did not dig him up again, as one of the 
gods commanded. 

Had he done so, the god said, all men would have 
lived again after a few days' interment. 

In Peru, where so much care was bestowed upon 
the corpse, resuscitation was an article of faith. The 
Yucas believed in a universal resurrection, not for 
glory or punishment, but for a renewal of this tem- 
poral life. 

And past signs of this belief are to be noticed in the 
belief of those a little higher in the scale of evolution. 

It is to be noticed ''in Moslem law, where prophets, 
martyrs and saints are not supposed to be dead, that 
their property remains their own." Even in Christian 
Europe distinguished men, from Charlemagne down 
to the first Napoleon, have been expected to reappear. 

To note the still existing form of this belief, it will 
be observed that it differs from the primitive form less 
than supposed. 

We do not mean merely that *'by one man sin en- 
tered into the world and death by sin," but the civil- 
ized creed implies that death is not a natural event, 
just as certainly as do the savage creeds, which as- 
cribe death to some difference of opinion among the 
gods, or to some disregard for their injunctions. 

And we need not refer only to the further evi- 

5Z 



C6e OBtioIutioit of TStlkfs 

dence, that in our State Prayer Book, bodily resur- 
rection is unhesitatingly asserted, and poems of more 
modern date contain descriptions of the dead arising 
again. 

''On July 5th, 1875, the Bishop of Lincoln preached 
against cremation as having a tendency to under- 
mine men's faith in resurrection." 

Dr. Wordsworth not only held, in common with the 
primitive man, that the corpse of each buried person 
will be resuscitated, but he also held, in common with 
the primitive man, that destruction of the corpse will 
prevent resuscitation. 

If he had been similarly situated, he would have 
turned Christian, as did the Ynca, in order to be 
hanged instead of burned, because he said to his 
wives, 'If this body is not burned, his father, the Sun, 
will raise him again." 

And it is to be again observed that the civilized 
belief in resurrection is only made partially dissimilar 
to the savage belief. 

The anticipated event is not abandoned; it is only 
postponed — to remoter places in time or space. 

As believers in special creations suppose them to 
happen, not where we are, but in distant parts of the 
world; as miracles, admitted not to take place now, 
are said to have taken place during a past dispen- 
sation, so reanimation of the body, no longer ex- 
pected as immediate^ is expected at an indefinitely far- 
off period. So, the idea of death differentiates slowly 
from the idea of temporary insensibility. 

At first, revival is looked for in a few hours, or in 
a few days, or in a few years; and gradually, as 
death becomes more definitely conceived, revival is 
not looked for until the end of all things. 

In the natural evolution of the human race, we are 

58 



Cfie OBtioIutioit of TBtlitt^ 



next, for our consideration, presented with the primi- 
tive ideas of souls, ghosts and demons. 

From many instances of experience, it is conclu- 
sively shown, when fear is joined with a preestab- 
lished belief, that it effectually produces illusions sup- 
porting such a belief. 

Such circumstances readily yielding the proper 
proof, the primitive man believed that the dead do 
reappear. 

These irreconcilable conceptions, even by the culti- 
vated members of civilized communities, readily sug- 
gest instances how primitive men, degraded in intelli- 
gence, and who without knowledge, may entertain 
conceptions which are mutually destructive. 

It is difficult to picture the primitive man's belief 
that they will come back in tangible shape, though he 
knows the dead are buried. 

And where it is asserted that the duplicate goes 
away, leaving the corpse behind, there seems no con- 
sistency in the accompanying supposition that it needs 
the food and drink they provide, or that it wants 
fire. 

For if it should be conceived as aeriform or ether- 
eal, then how can they suppose it can consume solid 
food? But if they conceive it to be substantial, how 
can they at the same time conceive that it coexists 
with the corpse, and can leave the grave without 
disturbing its covering? 

But our daily experiences reminding us, as above, 
of the extremes of credulity and illogicality possible 
even in educated men of developed races, easily en- 
able us to infer that the primitive man's ideas of the 
other self, impossible as it seems, can nevertheless be 
entertained. 

The New Caledonians believe that *'white men are 
the spirits of the dead who bring sickness." In some 

59 



Cfie Ctioltttfon of ^elfefg 

places the word used to signify a "white man also 
means a ghost.'' 

In other places Europeans are called the ''ghost 
tribe, or spirit men." 

By many instances furnished of the individual evi- 
dence, the implication is beyond doubt, that the dupli- 
cate at first must be conceived as no less material than 
its original. 

This is shown in different ways. Some think that 
the spirit appears after death and is not distinguish- 
able from the original person. And in other instances, 
there are those who believe that when the soul has 
been separated from the body that it exercises, in an- 
other life, the same functions performed in this, with 
no other difference, except that they are unaccompa- 
nied by fatigue or satiety. 

Quimbaya inhabitants acknowledge that there is 
something "immortal in man, but the soul was not dis- 
tinguished by them from the body." 

The ancient Peruvians distinctly stated that the 
"souls must rise out of their tombs, with all that be- 
longed to their bodies." 

To this they joined the belief "that the souls of the 
deceased must wander about enduring hunger, cold, 
thirst and other privations." 

This belief in addition to being expressed, is implied 
by acts. 

The practice of Peruvians and other primitive people 
of scattering flour, or ashes, around, with the view of 
seeing the footsteps of the deceased or for tracing the 
footsteps of demons, is paralleled elsewhere. 

Even the Jews practiced this custom. 

Bastiain has mentioned Negroes who must have pos- 
sessed a similar idea. These put thorns in the paths 
leading to their villages to keep away demons. 

60 



Cfie (OiJOlution of IStlitt^ 

Elsewhere the alleged demands for provisions by the 
dead have the same implication. 

Some are represented as going to fight the spirits in 
another place. 

Among the North American Indians the "'spirits 
were supposed to smoke." 

In Fiji it was believed that the gods eat those dead 
who were destroyed by men. These have a belief that 
the souls may be killed by men in battle similar to the 
first. 

We have allusions to their being killed in battle, 
and of their being carried away by the river. 

This beHef, in the substantiality of the double, was 
shared by the ancient Hindus, by the Tartars, and by 
early Europeans. 

This is an original conception, the transition from 
which to the less crude, that came later, cannot be 
clearly traced, but there is a sign of progressive modi- 
fication. 

The Indians of Yucatan mark the path from the 
tomb to the hut, to keep the soul of the deceased in its 
perambulations from being lost. 

"The Egyptians elaborated the doctrine that each, 
person is made up of several separate persons, or en- 
tities, soul, spirit and the ghost." 

And the conceptions of ghosts by the Greeks were 
similar. 

We read that Thirlwall has stated, "After their 
strength has been repaired, which is done only by the 
blood of a slaughtered victim, that they recover reason, 
and memory for a time, that they can recognize their 
living friends, and feel anxiety for those they have left 
on earth. 

A passage quoted from the Iliad shows how the no- 
tion becomes modified. Achilles said, that on awaking 
after dreaming of, and vainly trying to embrace, Pa- 

6i 



C6e Ctoolution of TBeliefg 



troclus, ''Ay me, there remaineth then even in the house 
of Hades a spirit and phantom of the dead, albeit the 
life be not anywise therein." 

Yet, being described as speaking and lamenting, the 
ghost of Patroclus is conceived as having the materi- 
ality implied by such acts, thus in the mind of the 
Homeric age, the dream, while continuing to furnish 
evidence of an after existence, furnished experiences 
which, when reasoned upon, necessitated an alteration 
in the ideas of the other-self, completely negativing 
substantiality. 

And the conceptions, which prevailed among the 
Hebrews, does not seem to have been different. We 
find at one time ascribed substantiality, at another, in- 
substantiality, and now something between the two. 

The resuscitated Christ was described as having 
wounds that admitted of tactual examination, and yet 
as passing unimpeded through a closed door, or 
through walls. 

And, generally, their supernatural beings, whether 
the revived dead or not, were similarly conceived. 
Further on we will carefully examine where three an- 
gels were supposed to dine with Abraham, or as puUing 
Lot into the house, they apparently possessing com- 
plete corporeity. There, both angels and demons are 
spoken of as swarming invisibly in the surrounding 
air, thus being incorporeal; while elsewhere they are 
said to have wings, implying locomotion by mechanical 
action, and are represented as rubbing against, and 
wearing out, the dresses of Rabbins in the synagogue. 

Manifestly, the universally accepted ghost stories 
among ourselves, in past times, involves the same 
thought. The ability to open doors, to clank chains, 
to make other noises, implies considerable coherence of 
the ghost's substance, and this coherence must have 
been assumed, however little was the assumption 

62 



C!)e (gtiolution of Igeliefg 

avowed. And, again, the still extant belief in the tor- 
ture of souls by fire, similarly, presupposes some form 
of materiality. 

Mingled with these, as implied above, we find ideas 
of semi-substantial duplicates, and inconsistently held 
along with the ideas of aeriform and shadowy dupli- 
cates. 

The conceptions of the other-self thus resulting, 
tending to supplant the conceptions of it as quite sub- 
stantial, or half substantial, because less conspicuously 
at variance with the evidence, led to the belief implied 
by the observances that ghosts need spaces to pass 
through, though not large ones. This led to the prac- 
tice in Fraser Island of putting a bark over the corpse, 
near the surface, to leave room, as they say, for the 
spirit or ghost to come out of the grave. In other in- 
stances, with the same motive holes are bored in the 
coffins. 

This brings us to certain derivative conceptions of 
great significance. Let us take first the most obvious. 
Having gone thus far, advancing intelligence has to go 
further. As we have seen that shadows are possessed 
not by men, animals, and plants only, but by other 
things — hence, if shadows are souls, these and all 
other things must have them. And now mark that we 
do not read of this belief among the lowest races. 

But it is a belief that arises in the more intelligent 
races, and develops. 

The Karns believe that every natural object has its 
lord or god, in the signification of its possessor or pre- 
siding spirit. 

These facts, and especially the last, go far to show 
that the belief in object-souls is a belief reached at a 
certain stage of intellectual evolution, as Spencer has 
said, as a corollary from a preestablished belief re- 
specting the souls of men. 

63 



C&e OBtoolution of T5tlitfg 

Returning from this parenthetical remark, it will be 
instructive, before closing this subject, to note the vari- 
ous classes of souls and spirits which this system of 
interpretation originates. 

First, we have the souls of deceased parents and 
relatives. These take in the minds of survivors vivid 
shapes, being distinguished from the souls of ancestors, 
according to their remoteness, pass into vagueness, 
which implies the ideas of souls individualized in dif- 
ferent degrees. 

Next we have the wandering doubles of individuals 
who are asleep, or more profoundly insensible. In 
other instances we have the souls of waking persons 
which have temporarily left them. This is found with 
the Karns, who believe that every individual has the 
presence of a guardian spirit walking by his side, or 
wandering away in pursuit of dreamy adventures ; and, 
if absent too long, must be called back with offerings. 

Such distinctions are clearly shown to us by the rec- 
ognition as the Malagasa make between the ghost of 
a living individual and one who is dead. 

Next we are to notice another classification of souls 
or spirits. We must take into account those of friends 
and those of enemies, the ones belonging to the mem- 
bers of the tribe and those belonging to the members of 
other tribes. 

These groups are not completely coincident, for 
there are the ghosts of bad men within the tribe; as 
well as the ghosts of foes outside, and in other in- 
stances there are the malignant spirits of those who 
have remained unburied. 

But generally speaking the good and the bad spirits 
have these origins, and the amity or the enmity ascribed 
to them after death, is but a continuance of the amity 
or enmity manifested to them during life. 

To these the souls of beasts, plants and inert things 

64 



Cfte OBtJOlutiott of T5tlit(s^ 

must be added. Though the Fijians and others believe 
that the souls of destroyed utensils go to the other 
world, yet they are not commonly regarded as inter- 
fering in human affairs. 

Now it remains to notice the progressive differentia- 
tion of the conceptions of body and soul which the facts 
demonstrate. In the past, we have been shown that 
along with the growth of intelligence the idea of that 
permanent insensibility, we understand to be death, 
is gradually differentiated from the ideas of those tem- 
porary insensibilities which simulate it, until at length 
it is marked off as radicaly unlike. This shows us the 
ideas of a substantial self and an unsubstantial self, 
which acquired their strong contrast by degrees, the re- 
sult of increasing knowledge, joined with a growing 
faculty to critically determine the change. When the 
Basutos believe the other-self so substantial that a 
crocodile may pull a man into a river by seizing his 
shadow, we may see that the irreconcilability of their 
ideas is so great that only advancing physical knowl- 
edge can modify them in the iconceptions of a less sub- 
stantial other-self. 

\ If, on the other hand, the Fijian ascribes such ma- 
teriality to the soul as to believe that in its journey 
after death, it is in danger of being seized by one of 
the gods, who may kill it with a stone, or if again he 
believes that a man has two souls, his shadow and his 
reflection, it becomes at once manifest that his beliefs 
are so greatly incongruous that criticism must ulti- 
mately change them. 

As the consciousness of the incongruity becomes 
more clear as thought becomes more deliberate, it leads 
to successive compromises. 

The second self, which has been originally conceived 
to be equally substantial as the first, grows step by step 
less substantial. Before it has been semi-solid, now it 

65 



Cf)e (gtioimion of IBeliefg 

is aeriform, then it is ethereal. This last stage being 
finally reached, there ceases to be ascribed any of the 
properties by which we know existence. This remains 
the assertion of an existence wholly undefined. 

For a greater exposition of these subjects, see Spen- 
cer's Sociology. 

From these vague ideas we advance to consider the 
general subject of another life. 

A belief in reanimation implies a belief in a subse- 
quent life. The primitive man being without language 
suitable for deliberate thinking, and incapable of delib- 
erate thought, has to conceive this the best he can. 
Hence, he has a chaos of ideas respecting the after 
state of the dead. 

Even among tribes who claimed that death was an- 
nihilation, we commonly find such inconsequent contra- 
dictory beliefs as those of some Africans who shunned 
certain caves from fear of the evil spirits of the fugi- 
tives, who died in them. 

The notions of a future life being incoherent at first, 
we have to observe their leading traits, and the stages 
of their development into greater coherence. Origi- 
nally, the belief is qualified and partial. We have seen, 
heretofore, that there were some who thought that re- 
suscitation depends on the treatment of the corpse, that 
destruction of it causes annihilation. And, again, there 
were those who believed that the second life may even 
be brought to a violent end. The dead man's double, 
or second life, may be killed afresh in battle, or may be 
destroyed before reaching the land of the dead, or 
after reaching there in safety, may be devoured by the 
gods. 

Further, as in Tonga, there is a caste limitation, 
.which suppose that only the chiefs have souls. Else- 

66 



Cfte dBDDlutiott of 'Beliefs 



where resuscitation is said to depend upon conduct and 
its incidental results. 

Some races think that another life is earned by brav- 
ery, as do the Comanches who anticipate it for good 
men, those who are daring in scalps and stealing 
horses. 

While, on the other side, there are the wild, unwar- 
like tribe of Guatemala, who were persuaded that to 
die by any other than a natural death, was to forfeit 
all hope of life hereafter, and therefore left the bodies 
of those who had been slain to the beasts and vultures. 
So, again, we find revival contingent on the pleasure 
of the gods, as among the ancient Aryans, who prayed 
for another life, and made sacrifice to obtain it. 

While in many cases there is a tacit supposition that 
the second life is ended by a second and final death. 

Before otherwise considering the primitive concep- 
tion of a future life, we will notice the character and 
duration of this one. 

One of the experiences suggesting it is also one of 
the experiences suggesting its limit, namely, the ap- 
pearance of the dead in dreams. 

The dead persons recognized in dreams must be per- 
sons who were known to the dreamers, and conse- 
quently the long dead, ceasing to be dreamed about, 
cease to be thought of as still existing. The savages 
who ground their belief on a future life by the fact 
that their friends visit them while they are asleep, nat- 
urally draw the inference that when the friends cease to 
visit them during sleep they have ceased to exist. 

Ask a Negro where the spirti of his great-grand- 
father is, he says he does not know. It is done. If 
you ask him about his brother, or father, who died re- 
cently, then you fill him with fear and terror. 

So, we see, that the evidence furnished by dreams 
establishes a like marked distinction between the souls 

6Z 



Ci)e ggtioliition of T3tlit($ 

of the lately dead, and the souls of those who have 
been dead a long time, which they believe have died 
utterly. 

We must leave unconsidered how the notion of a 
temporary life grows into an enduring after life. 

It will be sufficient at this time to point out the fact 
that the notion of an enduring after life is reached 
through stages. 

What must be the character of this after life — at first 
believed in vaguely, and in a variable manner, now as 
lasting for a time, then believed to be permanent? 

From the sundry funeral rites described in forego- 
ing pages, there is implied that the life which continues 
after this death, differs in no essential way from this. 

Some American Indians believe that the dead are 
permitted to visit the earth at night in search of food, 
but must return at daylight. 

The Tupis buried the dead in a house in the sitting 
position with food placed before it. 

Some of these beHeved that during the day the 
ghost went to sport among the mountains, and returned 
at night to eat and rest. 

When the future life is thought about as divided 
from the present by a more decided break, we find it 
still contrasted in little or nothing. What is said of the 
Fijians may equally apply to others. 

After death they plant, live in families, fight, and, 
in short, do much as people in this world. 

Let us notice the agreement on this point : The pro- 
visions they count upon differ from those they are ac- 
customed to, only by being better and more abundant. 

After death, the Creek Indians go where game is 
plenty and goods cheap, where there is corn all the year 
round, and the springs of pure water are never dried 
up. The Comanches look forward to hunting buf- 
faloes, which are ''abundant and fat." 

6S 



Cfie etiolation of Igeliefg 

The s:onception differs elsewhere only as the food 
differs. With similar food and drink, there goes simi- 
lar occupations. The Tasmanians expect to "pursue 
the chase with unwearied ardor and unfailing- success. 
The Dakotas look forward to ''war with their former 
enemies." 

To see how vivid these ideas are, we must recall 
the observances they entail. 

Books of travel have familiarized most readers with 
the customs of burying a dead man's movables with 
him. 

This custom elaborates as social development goes 
through its earlier stages. Here are illustrations joined 
with the constructions you may put upon them. 

The dead savage, having to hunt and to fight, must 
be armed. Hence, the deposit of weapons and imple- 
ments with the corpse. Some recognize the kindred 
needs of women and children, and bury their appliances 
and toys. 

The departed other-self will need clothes, hence the 
Abipones "hang a garment near the place of interment 
for the dead man to put on if he chooses to come out 
of the grave." 

And in many instances the goods, or chief treasures, 
of the deceased are buried with him. 

Among the Fantus "a funeral is usually absolute 
ruin to a poor family." 

Besides the deceased's property, the D3^aks bury with 
him sometimes large sums of money, and other valua- 
bles, so that it frequently happens that a father unfor- 
tunate in his family is by the death of his children re- 
duced to poverty. 

This conception of the second life having been car- 
ried out inconsistently, uncivilized people infer that, not 
only his inanimate possessions, but also his animate 
possessions will be needed by the deceased. 

69 



Cfte (gbolution of TStlkfs 

Hence, the slaughter of his live stock. Where the 
life led, instead of having- been predatory, or pastoral, 
has been agricultural, the same idea prompts a similar 
practice. 

Logically developed, the primitive belief implies, that 
the deceased will need clothing, his implements and 
weapons, ornaments and other movables, together with 
his domestic animals. In addition, he will also want 
human companionship and services. The attendance 
he had before death must be renewed after death. 

Hence, the heretofore widely prevalent and still 
prevalent custom of immolation. The custom of sacri- 
ficing wives, slaves, and friends, which developed as 
society advanced through its earlier stages, and as the 
theory of another life became more definite. 

The savages possessing only rudimentary social or- 
ganizations, wives are not killed to accompany dead 
husbands, or if they are, the custom is not so generally 
practiced as to be specified in the accounts given of 
them. But this practice is shown us in the customs of 
more advanced peoples. 

In some instances there is an immolation of friends. 

It was, however, in the considerably advanced so- 
cieties of ancient America that such arrangements were 
especially carried out with the greatest care. In 
Mexico, every great man's chaplain was slain, that he 
might perform for him the religious ceremonies in the 
next life. 

Among the Indians of Vera Paz, when a lord was 
dying, they immediately killed as many slaves as he 
had, that they might precede him and prepare the house 
for their master. 

The Mexicans were accustomed to sacrifice any ir- 
regularly formed men whom the king had collected in 
his palaces for his entertainment, in order that they 
might give him the same pleasure in the other world. 

70 



Cfte ggtiolmfott of iBeliefg 

Such elaborate precautions, of course, that the de- 
ceased should not lack hereafter any advantages he had 
enjoyed in this world, entailed enormous bloodshed. 
The number of the victims being proportioned to the 
grandeur of the funeral. 

The intensity of this faith, which prompted such cus- 
toms, is shown in the conceptions of the facts prompt- 
ing the victims from their own free will, who were 
often willing and anxious to die. 

In Africa, now, some friends at the funeral of a 
great man, will swallow poison, and are entombed with 
him. 

These immolations sometimes follow the death of the 
young. We read of a Chinook chief who wished to 
immolate his wife to accompany his dead son to the 
other world. 

The interpretations to be put on the sanguinary cus- 
toms of this kind to further qualify them, it becomes 
necessary to bear in mind that not only inferiors and 
dependents sacrificed at funerals, with or without their 
assent, but the superiors themselves in some instances 
decide to die. 

Having been conceived as similar to the first in its 
needs and occupations and pleasures, the second life is 
conceived similar to the first in its social arrangements. 

Both domestic and public subordination is expected 
to be the same hereafter as here. 

A specific statement to this effect may be added to 
the foregoing implications. 

''Cook states that the Tahitians divided the departed 
into classes similar to those existing among ourselves." 

In Fiji it is most "repugnant to the native mind" 
that a schief should appear in the next world unat- 
tended. 

The Chibchas also thought that in the future life 

71 



Cfje €tiDlutian of 15tlkfg 

that they would be attended by their servants as in the 
present. 

The Dahomans beHeve that the classes are the same 
in the second as in this life. 

While the Negroes of some tropical countries assert 
that their guardian god in the rainy season goes to 
visit the supreme god. 

That these analogies persist in the conceptions of 
higher races, scarcely needs saying. 

''The legend of the descent of Ishtar, the Assyrian 
Venus, shows that the residence of the Assyrian dead 
had, like Assyria, its despotic ruler, with officers levy- 
ing tribute." 

So, too, in the underworld of the Greeks, we have 
the dreaded Aides, with his wife Persephone, as rulers ; 
we have Minos giving sentence from his throne to the 
dead, while they sat and stood around the prince asking 
his dooms. 

And Achilles is thus addressed by Ulysses : 

*'For of old, in the days of thy life, we Argives gave 
thee one honor with the gods, and now thou art a 
great prince here among the dead." 

And while departed men are thus under political and 
social relations similar to those of living men, so are 
the celestials. 

Zeus stands to the rest exactly in the same relation! 
that an absolute monarch does to the aristocracy of 
which he is the head. 

Nor did Hebrew ideas of another life, when they 
arose, fail to yield similar analogies. 

Originally, Sheol meant the grave, or in a vague 
way, the place or state of the dead; when acquiring 
the more definite meaning of a miserable place for 
the dead, a Hebrew Hades, and afterward developing 
into a place of torture, Gehenna, introduces us to a 
form of diabolical government having gradations. 

72 



CSe (gtiolutfon of 15tiiti0 

And as the conceptions of life in the Hebrew heaven 
elaborated, the ascribed arrangements did not, like 
those of the Greeks, parallel terrestrial arrangements 
domestically, they did politically. 

As expressed by some commentators, there is im- 
plied a court of celestial beings." 

Sometimes, as in the case of Ahab, God is repre- 
sented as taking counsel with his attendants, and taking 
counsel and accepting a suggestion. 

There is a heavenly army spoken of as being di- 
vided into legions. There are archangels set over dif- 
ferent peoples. These deputy gods being in so far 
analogous to the minor gods of the Greek Pantheon. 

The chief* difference only being that their powers are 
more distinctly deputed, and their subordination 
greater, though here, too, the subordination is incom- 
plete. We read of wars in heaven and of rebellious 
angels cast down to Tartarus. 

And we have abundant evidence that this parallelism 
continued down to late Christian times. We read that 
in 1407, Petit, professor of theology in the University 
of Paris, represented God as a feudal sovereign, 
Heaven as a feudal kingdom and Lucifer as a rebel- 
lious vassal. "He deceived numbers of angels, and 
brought them over to his party, so that they were to 
do him homage and obedience as their lord, and be no 
way subject to God ; and Lucifer was to hold his gov- 
ernment in like manner to God, and independent of all 
subjection to him. 

''St. Michael, on discovering his intentions, came to 
him, and said that he was acting very wrong. A battle 
ensued between them, and many of the angels took part 
on either side, but the greater number were for St. 
Michael." 

That a similar view was held by our Protestant Mil- 
ton is obvious. 

73 



Cfte ggtiolution of IBelicfg 

Along with this parallelism between the social sys- 
tems of the two lives, may fitly be named the closeness 
of communion between them. 

The second life is originally allied to the first by 
frequency and directness of intercourse. 

*'In Dahoma many immolations are due to the al- 
leged need for periodically supplying the departed mon- 
arch with fresh attendants in the shadowy world, and 
further, whatever action, however trivial, is done by 
the king, it must be reported by some male or female 
messenger to the paternal ghost." 

And still stranger instances in trading transactions, 
money having been borrowed at a heavy rate of interest 
here to be paid in the next life. In this respect civilized 
conceptions have but slowly diverged from those of 
the uncivilized races. When we read that tribes of the 
Amazuen are hostile, that ancestral spirits of the one 
tribe go to fight the other ; we are reminded of the su- 
pernatural beings who, siding some with Greeks and 
some with Trojans, joined in the combat," also reminds 
us that the Jews thought "the angels of the nations 
fought in heaven when their allotted people made war 
on earth." Further, we are reminded that the creed 
of Christiandom, under its predominant form, implies 
a considerable communion between those in the one 
life and those in the other. 

The living pray for the dead and the canonized dead 
are asked to intercede on behalf of the living. 

The second life, being originally conceived as re- 
peating the first in other respects, is originally con- 
ceived as repeating it in conduct, sentiments, and eth- 
ical code. The Fijian chief, on arriving in the other 
world, recommends himself by the boast, "I have de- 
stroyed many towns, and slain many in battle." 

Of the after life of the departed Greeks, under its 
ethical code, the traits are but indistinct. 

74 



C6e (gaolutfon of T5tlit(» 

Nevertheless, we may note that the unredeemed bru- 
tality implied by the stories of the earlier gods, is, in 
the stories of the later, considerably mitigated; in 
correspondence with the mitigation of barbarism at- 
tending the progress of Greek civiHzation. Nor in the 
ascribed moral standard of the Hebrew other life, do 
we fail to see a relative similarity, if a less complete 
one. Subordination is still the supreme virtue. 

If this is displayed, wrong acts are condoned, or are 
not supposed to be wrong. The obedient Abraham 
is applauded for his readiness to sacrifice Isaac; there 
is no sign of blame for so readily accepting the mur- 
derous suggestion of his dream as a dictate from 
heaven. 

The massacre of the Amalekites by divine command 
is completed by the merciless Samuel without check; 
and there is tacit condemnation of the more merciful 
Saul. But though the God of the Hebrews is repre- 
sented as hardening Pharaoh's heart, and as sending a 
lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his prophets, yet 
it is to be noted that the ethical codes of heaven and 
paradise, while reflecting the code of a people in some 
respects barbarous, reflect the code of a people in other 
respects morally superior. Justice and mercy enter into 
the moral standards of both lives in a degree not shown 
us in the moral standards of lower men. 

And now, we are introduced to the remaining fact to 
be noticed : the divergence of the civilized idea from 
the savage idea. 

Here we will glance at the chief contrasts, the com- 
plete substantiality of the second life as originally con- 
ceived, following necessarily from the conception of 
the other self as quite substantial, the foregoing evi- 
dence clearly shows us. 

Somehow, keeping himself out of sight, the de- 
ceased eats, drinks, hunts, and fights as before. How, 

75 



C6e ggaolution of 13tlitt» 

material his life is supposed to be, we see in such facts 
as that, among the deceased Kaffirs, wherein they 
break the weapons lest some midnight the ghost may 
return to air and do harm with them. 

And again, destruction of the body by burning or 
otherwise, tending to produce a qualified notion of the 
revived other self, tends to produce a qualified notion 
of the other life, physically considered. 

As we have seen the activities and gratifications of 
the second life, originally conceived as identical with 
those of the first, come in course of time to be con- 
ceived as more or less unlike them. Parallelisms pass 
into divergence. 

Without an endeavor to trace the changes, it 
will suffice if we turn to the current description of a 
hereafter, in which the daily occupations and amuse- 
ments find no place, and in which there is no marrying 
or giving in marriage. 

However, it is still conceived as a life in which all 
the days are Sundays, wherein congregations ne'er 
break up, but yet is conceived as akin to a part of the 
present life, though not to the average of it. 

Now the supposed form of social order becomes par- 
tially unlike the known form. Type of government, 
caste distinctions, servile institutions, are originally 
transferred from the experiences here to the imagina- 
tions hereafter. 

Though the analogy between the social orders of the 
first and the second lives in the conceptions entertained 
by the most civilized, does not wholly disappear, the 
second deviates a good deal from the first, yet the gra- 
dations implied by an hierarchy of archangels, and an- 
gels bear some relation to the gradations here, still 
they are thought about as otherwise based. 

Similarly respecting the ethical conceptions and the 
imphed sentiments. Along with the emotional modi- 

76 



C&e (gaolution of Ogeliefg 

fications that have taken place during civilization, there 
have gone modifications in the beliefs respecting the 
code of conduct and the measure of goodness in the life 
to come. 

The religion of enmity, which makes international 
revenge a duty and sucessful retaliation a glory, is to 
be wholly abandoned, and the religion of amity to be 
qualified. 

But yet the feelings now dominant are to remain 
dominant. The desire for approbation which is a rul- 
ing passion here, is represented as being a ruling pas- 
sion there. 

The giving of praise and receiving of approval are 
figured as the chief sources of happiness. 

Lastly, the two lives become more widely discon- 
nected. At first perpetual intercourse between those 
in the one and those in the other is believed to be going 
on. The savage daily propitiates the dead, and they 
are supposed daily to aid or hinder the acts of the 
living. 

Such a communion, persisting throughout the earlier 
stages of civilization, gradually becomes less close. 

Still priests are paid for saying masses for departed 
souls, and invocations of saints for help, this exchange 
of sei vices has been, and still continues to be, generally 
shown, yet the cessation of such practices among the 
most civilized, implies a complete sundering of the two 
lives in their thoughts. As the idea of death thus gets 
gradually marked o& from the idea of suspended ani- 
mation, and as the anticipated resurrection comes to be 
thought of as more and more remote, so the distinc- 
tion between the second life and the first life, grows 
little by little decided. The second life diverges by be- 
coming less material, by becoming more unlike in its 
occupations, by having another kind of social order, by 
presenting gratifications more remote from those of the 

77 



Cfte evolution of Igcliefe 

senses, and by a higher standard of conduct it assumes. 

Thus, differentiating in nature, the second Hfe sepa- 
rates more widely from the first. 

Communion decreases. There is an increasing inter- 
val between the ending of the one and the beginning 
of the other. 

Here we approach the ideas of another world. Hav- 
ing described some of the most salient ideas of another 
life, it yet remains to describe the ideas entertained of 
another world. 

The two sets of ideas are so closely related that the 
one cannot be considered without occasional reference 
to the other. 

Because the question of the locality in which another 
life is supposed to be passed is a separate question, and 
because the conceptions men entertain concerning the 
locality, undergo modifications, we have reserved the 
second question for separate treatment. 

In this investigation, we shall find, that by a process 
related to the processes lately contemplated, the place 
of residence for the dead diverges slowly from the 
place of the residence for the living. 

Originally, the two coincide, the savage imagines his 
dead relatives close at hand. If he renews the suppHes 
of food at their graves, and otherwise propitiates them, 
the implication is, that they are not far away, or that 
they will soon be back. This implication he accepts. 
The Sandwich Islanders "believe that the spirit of the 
departed hovers about the places of its former resort." 
And there are many instances showing an identical be- 
lief with many other peoples. And certain funeral cus- 
toms lead to the implied belief in a special place of resi- 
dence near at hand, namely, the deserted house or vil- 
lage in which the deceased lived. 

In these cases the consistency is complete. From the 
Other primitive ideas we have traeed, arises this primi- 

7? 



Cf)e (Etiolutfon of T5tlit($ 

tive idea that the second life is passed in the locality 
in which the first life was passed. 

In other instances elsewhere, we are able to trace 
small modifications. The region said to be haunted by 
the souls of the dead becomes wider, though the ghosts 
visit their old homes, yet, usually, they keep at some 
distance. 

In New Caledonia "the spirits of the dead are sup- 
posed to go to the bush." 

In other cases the funeral customs generate the idea 
that the world of the dead is an adjacent mountain. 
The Caribs buried their chiefs on hills. In Borneo they 
deposit the bones of the dead on the least accessible 
peaks. 

Where caves have been used for interments, they be- 
come the supposed places of abode for the dead; and 
hence, develops the notion of a subterranean other 
world. 

Ordinary burial, joined with the belief in a double 
who continually wanders and returns to the grave, 
may perhaps suggest an idea similar to that of the 
Khonds, whose divinities, ancestral spirits, were all 
confined to the limits of the earth. Here they reside, 
emerging and retiring at will. 

From the custom of burial in caves, we find along 
with it the conception of an underground region to 
which the dead betake themselves. From the fact that 
the people having at one time inhabited caves and later 
on took them for burial places, generated the idea in 
some, that they were to return to those divine caverns 
where they were created and where their particular 
deities are. 

To understand more fully the genesis of this last be- 
lief, we must ask what changes the ideas of another 
world close at hand to the idea of another compara- 
tively remote? 

79 



Cfte evolution of OBeliefg 

The answer is simply that of migration. The 
dreams of those who have lately migrated initiate be- 
liefs in future abodes which the dead reach by long 
journeys. 

Having attachments left behind, and being subject 
to homesickness, sometimes in very extreme degrees 
uncivilized men, driven by war or famine to other 
habitats, must often dream of the places and persons 
left behind them. Their dreams are narrated and 
accepted in the original way as actual experiences, 
which make it appear that during sleep they have 
been to their old homes. First one and then another 
dreams thus, until the notion of the fatherland has 
been during sleep rendered familiar. What naturally 
happens at death, interpreted as it is by the primitive 
man? 

The other-self is long absent. Where has he gone? 
Obviously, having longed to go back, and frequently 
said he would, now he has done as he said he would. 
This interpretation is met with everywhere, but it is 
in some of the cases implied, while in others it is 
stated. 

The Teutonic tribes so conceived the future as to 
reduce death to a home-going : a return to the Father. 

Here we will observe how the implications corre- 
spond with the facts. 

Migrations have been made in all directions ; hence, 
on this hypothesis, there must have arisen many dif- 
ferent beUefs respecting the direction of the world. 
This we find true. These beHefs not only differ in 
separate parts of the world, but differ within each 
considerable area, and usually in the ways that might 
be expected by the routes through which the habitats 
were reached. 

The Damars place the corpse facing toward the 
north, to remind the natives of the direction from which 

80 



Cfje OBtioIutiDn of 'Belief0 

they came. Along with these conceptions there go 
different ideas of the journey to be taken after death; 
with correspondingly different preparations for it. 

There is the journey to the under world; the jour- 
ney overland; the journey down a river; and the 
journey across the sea. 

Descent from troglodytes, alike shown by remains 
and surviving in traditions, generates a group of be- 
liefs respecting man's origin. When joined with the 
expectation of returning home after death, we have 
a further group of beliefs respecting the locality of 
the other world. At least one-half of the original 
tribes of America represent that man was first created 
under the ground; hence the belief in an indefinitely 
extended underground world. And where any such 
cave, originally inhabited, was afterward used for 
purposes of sepulchre, and was consequently consid- 
ered to be peopled by the souls of the ancestors, there 
would naturally result the belief that the journey after 
death to the ancestral home ended in a descent to 
Hades. 

Where the journey thus ending is a long one, prepa- 
rations have to be made for it. Hence the club put 
in the hand of the dead Fijian to be ready for self- 
defence. And similarly with many other peoples. 

Of course a certain family likeness among alleged 
difficulties of this return journey, after death, is to be 
expected where the migrations had similar difficulties. 
Hence, the ferry money, and the presents for appeas- 
ing the demons. 

The descriptions of the journeys are the natural 
leading events among the inhabitants of continents. 
Sometimes the inability to pass a river is the assigned 
reason for the return of the soul. 

The journey to the other world down a river, or 
over the sea, is made by placing the corpse in a canoe. 

8x 



Cl)e OBtooIutiDn of ^Beliefs 

The South Wales people for some purpose bury the 
dead in a bark canoe. 

Like evidence is found in the northern hemisphere. 
In some societies there arises a belief in two or more 
other worlds. Such is the result of conquest, the con- 
tending tribes having had different ancestral homes. 

On remembering that our word villain, now so ex- 
pressive of detestable character, once merely meant a 
serf, while noble was at first indicative only of high 
social position, we see thoroughly the tendency of 
early opinion to identify subjection with badness and 
supremacy with goodness; even in some of our civ- 
ilized societies such ideas of the superiors are enter- 
tained. 

In the societies where worth is measured by bravery, 
we perceive a further reason why the other worlds 
are different for the upper and lower classes. Nat- 
urally, therefore, where indigenous descendants from 
cave-dwellers have been subjugated by an invading 
race, it will happen that the respective places to which 
the two expect to return will differentiate into places 
for the bad and the good. 

We have seen that along with the custom of depos- 
iting a chief's remains on some peak difficult of ac- 
cess there goes the belief that the spirits of the de- 
parted inhabit the mountain tops. 

Now it comes to us only to observe that the custom 
causes the belief. In this, we have the belief that the 
highest mountain in sight is peopled by the departed. 
Now with the undeveloped speech of the savages living 
upon a peak up in the heavens, is readily confounded 
with living in the heavens. 

Remembering that, originally, the firmament was 
considered as a dome supported by these loftiest peaks, 
so the conclusion that those living on mountains had 
access to heaven. 

82 



Cfie OBiJOlution of IBtlitt^ 



Now, on the other hand, if, instead of a native ruler 
thus Hving up in the clouds and keeping the country 
around in fear, occasionally coming down to fulfil a 
threat of vengeance, we should suppose a ruler belong- 
ing to an invading race to bring knowledge and skill, 
arts and implements unknown to the natives, they 
would be regarded as beings of a superior kind, just 
as superiors are now regarded by savages; and from 
these circumstances there would naturally arise leg- 
ends concerning this superior race seated in the sky. 

From many instances now before us we have 
reached the conclusion that those who have a moun- 
tain top for their abode are supposed to be superhu- 
man beings commanding the powers of nature and 
punishing men. 

And the further conclusion to which we are led is, 
that the ideas of another world pass through stages of 
development. 

Finally, where the places for the departed or for 
the superior classes of beings, are mountain tops, there 
is a transition to an abode in the heavens; which, at 
first near and definite, passes into the remote and in- 
definite. So that the supposed residence for the dead, 
originally coinciding with the residences of the hving, 
is Httle by little removed in thought, until distance 
and direction grow increasingly vague, and finally the 
localization disappears in space. 

These conceptions which then have their root in 
the primitive idea of death, simultaneously undergo 
similar progressive modifications. Resurrection, once 
looked for as immediate, is postponed indefinitely ; the 
ghost, originally conceived as quite substantial, fades 
into ethereality; the other life, which at first repeated 
this exactly, becomes more and more dissimilar, and 
its place, from a completely known adjacent spot, 
passes to a somewhere unknown and unimagined one. 

83 



Cl)e ©solution of IBtlitt^ 

CHAPTER III. 

THE SPECIALIZED IDEAS OF SUPERNATURAL AGENTa 

As we specialize these in correspondences with our 
thoughts, our words do not truly represent the 
thoughts of the savage, and often entirely misrepre- 
sent them. The supernatural must presuppose the 
natural; and, until there has been reached that idea 
of orderly causation which we call natural, there can 
exist no such idea as we imply by supernatural. I 
am obliged to use the word in default of a better ; but 
the reader must be cautioned against ascribing to the 
primitive man a conception similar to that which the 
word gives us. 

This premised, let us, so far as we can, picture the 
imaginary environment the primitive man makes for 
himself. 

In every tribe a death from time to time adds an- 
other ghost to the many ghosts of those who died 
before. Originally we have seen that these ghosts are 
thought of as close at hand, haunting the old home, 
lingering near the place of burial. 

Wandering about in the adjacent bush, continually 
accumulating, they form a surrounding population, 
visually invisible, but some of them occasionally seen. 

The Tahitians believed that they lived in a world 
of spirits, here regarded as friendly, and there as 
workers of mischief. In some instances, as by the 
Nicobar people, the ancestral spirits are driven away. 
''Once in the year, or when great sickness prevails, 
the priest, or Meinloven," has a boat taken close to 
the house and then drives the spirits into it by means 
of a frightful noise. Men, women, and children assist 
the priest in his conjuration and to haul the canoe 

84 



CSe €lioIution of ^elfefe 

to the seashore, where it is set afloat with a full cargo 
of devils, who are soon carried away. 

These multitudinous disembodied spirits are agents 
ever available, as conceived antecedents to all oc- 
currences needing explanation. 

It is not necessary that their identification as ghosts 
should continue in a distinct form; many of them are 
sure to lose this character. The swarms of demons 
by whom the Jews thought themselves environed, while 
regarded by some as the spirits of the wicked dead, 
readily came to be regarded by others as the offspring 
of the fallen angels and the daughters of men. 

Making it clear that the wandering doubles of the 
dead, supposed by the primitive man to be everywhere 
around, furnishes the idea of potentiality of countless 
supernatural agencies capable of indefinite variation. 

Hence, the inevitableness of the natural interpreta- 
tions the savage gives of the surrounding phenomena. 
With the development of the ghost theory there arises 
an easy way of accounting for all those changes which 
the heavens and earth hourly present. 

These beings to whom is ascribed the power of 
making themselves visible or invisible at pleasure, and 
to whose other powers no limits were known, are om- 
nipresent. 

Explaining, as their agency seems to do, all unex- 
pected changes, their own existence becomes further 
verified. No other causes for such changes were 
known, or could be conceived ; therefore, these souls of 
the dead must have been the causes ; hence, the infer- 
ence that souls survive must be manifest; a circular 
reasoning which suffices many beside savages. 

The interpretation of nature which precedes scien- 
tific interpretations, were the best then that could be 
framed. 

In early stages the ghosts of the dead are the as- 

85 



Cfie €tioIution of T5tlit($ 



signed agents for all the strange phenomena of na- 
ture. 

In the course of time, there being nothing to main- 
tain in tradition the likenesses between the ghosts and 
the individuals they were derived from, and along 
with innumerable other divergencies, there conies not 
only a fading of individual traits, but at length a 
fading of human traits. 

Varieties pass into species, genera and orders of 
supernatural beings. 

Of course, if the ghosts of the dead, passing grad- 
ually into less distinct but still personal forms, are 
thus the agents supposed to work all the notable ef- 
fects in the surrounding world, they are also the agents 
supposed to work notable effects in the affairs of 
men. 

Ever at hand, and moved by amity or enmity, it is 
incredible that they should not interfere in human 
actions. The soul of a dead foe is on the watch to 
cause an accident ; the soul of a late relative is ready 
to help and to guard if in humor, or, if offended, to 
make something go wrong. 

Hence explanations, universally applicable, of suc- 
cesses and failures. 

These explanations have prevailed among all peo- 
ples, differing only in the extent to which the guard- 
ing or hindering spirits have lost their human char- 
acter. 

Even higher up in the scale of mental development 
we have among the Homeric heroes feats of arms set 
down to the assistance of the supernatural beings who 
join in the battle. 

With Hector, "one, at least, of the gods was ever 
present." 

Should he be a Greek whose spear is well fixed in 
a Trojan's side by the guiding hand of his favorite 

86 



Cfie (Etiolutiott of IBtlitts 



deity, or be it the Jew's ministering angel, or the 
Catholic's patron saint, there is identity in essentials, 
and only more or less difference in form. 

The only question is solely how far this evolution 
of the ghosts of the dead into supernatural agents 
has gone. 

We have to note, lastly and chiefly, the fact that this 
machinery of causation which the primitive man is 
inevitably to frame for himself, fills his mind to the 
exclusion of any other machinery. 

This hypothesis of ghost agency gains a settled oc- 
cupancy of the field, long before there is either the 
power or opportunity of gathering together and or- 
ganizing the experiences which yield the hypothesis 
of physical force agency. 

Even among ourselves, with our vast accumulation 
of definite knowledge, and our power for diffusing it, 
the displacement of an old doctrine by a new one is 
very difficult. 

Judge, then, its difficulty where the few facts known 
remain ungeneralized, unclassified, unmeasured ; where 
the very motions of order, cause, law, are absent; 
where criticism and skepticism are but incipient; and 
where there is not even the curiosity needful to prompt 
inquiry. 

Hence the surprise commonly expressed at these 
primitive interpretations is an unwarranted surprise. 
The absurdity is in supposing that the uncivilized man 
possesses at the outset the idea of natural causation 
on which to base his explanations. Only as societies 
grow, arts multiply, experiences accumulate, and con- 
stant relations of phenomena become recognized, reg- 
istered, and familiar, does the notion of natural ex- 
planation become possible. 

And now, having seen the way in which the primi- 
tive man is led to think of the activities in his environ- 

8Z 



C^e Clsolutfon of lgellef0 

ment as controlled by the spirits of the dead, and by 
spirits more or less differentiated from them, let us 
observe how he is similarly led to think of such spirits 
as controlling the activities within his body and within 
the bodies of others. 

Now we are to consider the primitive ideas of dis- 
eases as caused by supernatural agents. 

During evolution the phenomena exhibited cannot 
be placed in serial order. 

There are always divergencies and re-divergencies, 
setting out with the primitive ideas of insensibility of 
death and of the ghost. We have traced along cer- 
tain lines the developing ideas of another life and 
another world; and along other lines we have traced 
the developing ideas of supernatural agents as exist- 
ing on all sides. 

Setting out afresh from the insensible body as the 
starting point, we are now to observe how a further 
class of ideas has been simultaneously developing by 
the aid of those we have considered. 

In sleep, in swoon, in apoplexy, there is almost com- 
plete quiescence, and at death the quiescence becomes 
absolute. 

Usually, then, in the absence of the other self, the 
body does nothing. But in some of these convulsive 
seizures how came the body to behave so strangely 
during the interval? The answer to this question is 
the most rational the primitive man can give. 

If, during insensibilities of all kinds, the soul wan- 
ders and, on returning, causes the body to resume its 
activity, the soul can thus not only go out of the body, 
but can go into it again ; and if such be true, can the 
body not be entered by some other soul ? The savage 
thinks it can. 

Hence the interpretation of epilepsy. The Congo 
people ascribe epilepsy to demoniac possession. 

88 



Cfje €tooIution of T3tlit(» 



The Jews regarded these persons as those into whom 
bad spirits had entered. And that this explanation 
persisted among the civilized up to comparatively re- 
cent times needs no qualification. 

The original inference has been, that while the pa- 
tient's other self has gone away some disembodied 
spirit has entered its place, and uses his body in this 
violent way. Where we have a specific account of 
this conception in its earliest stage, we learn that the 
assumed supernatural agent is a ghost. A further 
question comes before the primitive mind, and a fur- 
ther rational corollary is drawn, which develops into 
a series of curious but consistent ideas. Occasionally 
a person, while still conscious, cannot control the ac- 
tions of his body. Has, then, another soul entered 
him? An affirmative answer is inevitable. 

Carried thus far, the explanation has to be carried 
further. If these more violent actions of the body, 
performed in defiance of the will, are ascribable to a 
usurping demon, so, too, must be the less violent ac- 
tions of this kind. In some of these cases we have proof 
that the possession is temporary, while in other in- 
stances the possession was permanent. However, 
there is nothing to determine whether this possession 
is by a friendly or an unfriendly spirit. 

It may be, as among the Zulus, an ancestral ghost, 
or, as among other peoples, it may be a malicious de- 
mon. 

If the convulsions of epilepsy are supposed to be 
due to evil spirits, so may the convulsive actions of 
other maladies be due to possession. 

All involuntary muscular contractions may reason- 
ably be ascribed to possession, if those of epilepsy 
are so. 

Certain allied phenomena, explicable in like manner 
and otherwise inexplicable, further confirm the doc- 

89 



Ci)e ggaolution of ogeliefs 

trine of possession. We refer to the phenomena of 
delirium and madness. 

What has come to this man who, lying prostrate, 
and refusing to eat, does not know those around, mut- 
ters incoherently or talks nonsense, now speaks to 
some one the bystanders cannot see, now shrinks in 
terror from an invisible foe, now laughs without a 
cause? Are these conditions of possession? 

Manifestly one of these spirits or ghosts, swarming 
around, had entered his body at night while he was 
away and had thus abused it. 

That savages do thus interpret the facts we have 
not much evidence. 

But when from temporary insanity we pass to the 
temporary form of it, we find proof, everywhere, that 
this is the interpretation given : "According to Jo- 
sephus, demons are the spirits of the wicked dead, 
who enter into the bodies of the living." 

As in those days the possessed were supposed to 
have frequented burial places, and as demons were 
supposed to make tombs their favorite haunts, we may 
conclude in general that the possessing spirit was at 
first conceived as a ghost. 

The continuance of this belief of insanity through 
mediaeval days, down to the days when the seventy- 
second canon of our church tacitly embodied it by 
forbidding the casting out of devils without a special 
license, is easy to understand. 

Only after science had made familiar the idea that 
mental states result from nervous actions, which can 
be disordered by physical causes, did it become pos- 
sible to conceive the mad man's amazing ideas and 
passions in any other way than the expressions of 
some nature similar to his own. 

And again the uncivilized or semi-civilized man 
knows nothing about subjective illusions. What, then, 

90 



Cfie (Evolution of TSeliefg 



must he think when he hears a maniac talking furi- 
ously to an invisible person, or throwing a missile at 
some being, unseen by others, whom he wants to drive 
away? 

His frantic gestures, his glaring eyes, his shrieking 
voice, make it impossible to doubt the strength of his 
belief. 

Obviously, then, there are mischievous demons 
around, manifest to him, but not to the bystanders. 

Any who may doubt the existence of supernatural 
agents can no longer doubt. 

In his paroxysms the insane is more than ordinarily 
strong. What is the inference? The demon has 
superhuman power. Once established, this mode of 
explaining unusual actions, mentally and bodily, ex- 
tends itself. Insensibly extending itself from abnor- 
malities of the varieties above instanced, to those of 
other varieties. Other ideas are soon included under 
this theory. And, then, if some unhealthy states are 
produced by indwelling demons, then others are thus 
produced. A malicious spirit is either in the body or 
else hovering about inflicting evil. 

The primitive form of this interpretation is shown 
us by the Amazulu. Even a stitch in the side they 
thus explain. Sometimes this possessing spirit has 
been called the chief. Has he left you? 

If, instead of ghost, we read supernatural agent, 
the savage theory will become the semi-civilized 
theory. 

The earliest recorded hero of the Babylonians, Izdu- 
bar, is smitten with a grievous malady by the offended 
goddess, Ishtar. 

In the Iliad the Greeks who died of pestilence are 
represented as hit by Apollo's arrows. 

It was also believed by the Jews that dumbness and 

91 



C6e CUoIution of 'Beliefs 

blindness ceased when the devils causing them were 
ejected. And in aftertimes the Fathers held that 
demons inflicted diseases. How persistent this kind 
of interpretation has been, we are shown by the fact 
that the production of illness by witches, who insti- 
gate devils, is even now alleged among the uncul- 
tured; and by the fact that some of the cultured still 
countenance the belief that illness is diabolically 
caused. A state-authorized expression of this theory 
of disease is often repeated by priests. In the order for 
the visitations of the sick, one of the prayers is, "Re- 
new in Him" "whatsoever has been decayed by the 
fraud and malice of the devil." 

After contemplating the genesis of the foregoing 
beliefs, the accompanying belief that death is due to 
supernatural agency will no longer surprise us. 

In one form or other this belief occurs everywhere. 
In Africa, as in Australia, no man dies a natural 
death. 

The Tahitians regarded the effects of poisons, and 
that of death of those who were killed in battle, to 
the effects of the displeasure of the gods. 

And many other peoples held such ideas. 

Here, we must name a sequence. 

Eventually the individualities of the particular de- 
mons supposed to have caused death merge into a gen- 
eral individuality, a personalized death. This per- 
sonalization probably beginning everywhere in the 
tradition of some ferocious foe, whose directly seen 
acts of vengeance were multitudinous, and to whom, 
afterwards, unseen acts of vengeance were more and 
more ascribed. 

Be this as it may, however, we can trace the evolu- 
tion of these ^imitive notions into those which ex- 
isted in classic times of the mediaeval period. 

92 



Cfte (CtJDlution of 15tlitt^ 

At a Naga's burial his friends arm themselves, and 
challenge the spirit who caused his death. Many more 
relative beliefs concerning the cause of death could 
be cited. 

In the minds of many the notion still lingers. When 
reading, with astonishment, that savages, not recogniz- 
ing natural death, ascribe all death to supernatural 
agency, we forget that even now supernatural agency 
is assigned in the cases where the causes of death are 
not obvious, as where a coroner renders the verdict: 
*'Died by the visitation of God." 

Considered thus as following from the primitive 
interpretation of dreams, and the consequent theory 
of ghosts, souls, or spirits, these conclusions are quite 
consistent. 

If souls can leave their bodies and re-enter them, 
why should not bodies be entered by strange souls, 
while the souls belonging to them are absent? 

And if these remarkable derangements of body and 
mind are thus effected, the manifest inference is, that 
diseases and disorders of less remarkable kinds are 
effected in the same way. Should there not be a demon 
within the body, there must be, at any rate, some in- 
visible enemy at hand who is working these strange 
perturbations in it. 

Often occurring after long continued disease, death 
must be caused by that which caused the disease. 
Whenever death has no visible antecedent, it is still 
probable that there was some demoniacal interfer- 
ence. 

The giving away of his foothold and consequent 
fatal fall of a companion down a precipice, or the par- 
ticular motion which carried a spear into his heart, 
was very likely determined by the malicious spirit 
or foe. 

93 



C6e ^tiolution of 'Beliefs 



NEXT WE ARE PRESENTED WITH THE PRIMITIVE IDEAS 

OF INSPIRATION, DIVINATION, EXORCISM, 

AND SORCERY. 

If a man's body may be entered by a wicked soul 
of the dead enemy, may it not be entered by a friendly 
soul ? If, even while a man is conscious, the ghost of 
a foe may becomie joint occupant of his body and con- 
trol its actions in spite of him, may not joint occupancy 
be assumed by an ancestral ghost, which co-operates 
with him instead of opposing him, thereby lending him 
extra strength, knowledge, or cunning? 

These questions the savage answers consistently in 
the affirmative. 

The fact that maniacs, during their paroxysms, are 
far stronger than men in their normal states, raises, 
as we before saw, the belief that these supernatural 
agents have superhuman energies. 

That manifestations of unusual will and strength 
are thus accounted for, we find proofs in early tra- 
ditions. 

We read that, encouraging Diomede, Minerva says, 
*Tn thy breast have I set thy father's courage, un- 
daunted, even as it was in knightly Tydeus." Here 
we observe that these words imply some kind of in- 
spiration, some breathing in of a soul that had been 
breathed out of a father. 

But such is more distinctly implied by certain leg- 
endary histories of the Egyptians. 

In the third Sallier papyrus, narrating a conquest, 
Rameses II. invokes his father, Ammon, and receives 
the reply, "Rameses Miamon, I am with thee, thy 
father Ra. I am worth to thee 100,000 joined in one," 
And when Rameses, deserted by his own army, pro- 
ceeds single-handed to slay the army of his foes, they 

94 



Cf)e CtJOlutiott of 15elief0 



are represented as saying, "No mortal born is he 
whoso is among- us." 

Here, it is necessary to observe the several points 
of significance. The ancestral ghost was the posses- 
sing spirit, giving superhuman strength. Along with 
the development of this ancestral ghost into a great 
divinity had gone increase of this strength from some- 
thing a little above the human to something immeas- 
urably above the human. 

The conceptions very common to all the ancient 
Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Greeks, were 
derivatives from the notions that the gods, otherwise 
much similar to men, were distinguished by power 
much transcending that of men; and this conception, 
subject to restraint, readily expanded into the concep- 
tion of omnipotence. 

A concomitant result was, that any display of bodily 
energy exceeding that which was ordinary, raised in 
observers the suspicion either that there was posses- 
sion by a supernatural being, or that a supernatural 
being in disguise was before them. 

And, similarly, with extraordinary mental power. 
If an incarnate spirit, having either the primitive char- 
acter of an ancestral ghost, or some modified and de- 
veloped character, can give superhuman strength of 
body, then it can give, too, superhuman intelligence 
and superhuman passion. 

We are so remote from this doctrine of inspiration 
that it is among the greatest difficulties that we think 
it ever was accepted literally. 

Some existing races, as the Tahitians, do indeed 
show us, in its original form, the belief that the priests 
when inspired ceased to act or to speak as voluntary 
agents, but moved and spoke as entirely under super- 
natural influence, in this making real to us the ancient 

95 



Ciie OBaoIutfon of TStUtfs 

belief that prophets were channels for divine utter- 
ances. 

But we less clearly recognize the truth that the in- 
spiration of the poet was at first conceived in the same 
way. 

''Sing, O goddess, the destructive wrath of Achilles," 
was not like the invocations of the Muses in later 
times, a rhetorical form; but was an actual prayer for 
possession. 

The Homeric belief was that all great and glorious 
thoughts came from a god. 

Such a mode of interpreting ideas and feelings of 
course admits of unlimited extension; and hence the 
assumption of a supernatural cause, made on the 
smallest suggestion, becomes habitual. In the Iliad, 
Helen is represented as having an ordinary emotion 
excited in her by Iris, who put into her heart sweet 
longing for her former husband, her city, and par- 
ents. Nor does the interpretation extend itself only to 
exaltations, emotional or intellectual. 

In the Homeric view, not the doers of an evil deed, 
but the gods who inspired the purpose of doing it, 
were the real criminals ; and even a common error of 
judgment the early Greeks explained by saying, "A 
god deceived me that I did this thing." 

How this theory, beginning with that form, still 
shown us by such savages as the Congos, who ascribe 
the contortions of the priest to the inspiration of the 
fetish, and differentiating into inspirations of the di- 
vine and diabolical forms, has persisted and developed, 
it is needless to show in detail. 

It is still living both in sacred and secular thought ; 
and between the earliest and latest views the unlike- 
ness is far less than we suppose. 

When we read a quotation of Brinton, "that among 
the Tahkalish the priest is accustomed to lay his hand 

96 



Cije OBtJOlution of ^Beliefs 



on the head of the nearest relative of the deceased, and 
to blow into him the soul of the departed, which is 
supposed to come to life in his next child," we are 
reminded that in the service for ordaining priests there 
are the words, ''Receive the Holy Ghost for the of- 
fice and work of a priest in the Church of God, now 
committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." 
Not only in the theory of Apostolic Succession do we 
see this modified form of the savage belief in inspira- 
tion, but we see it, with a difference, in the ideas of 
the most unsacerdotal of our sects, the Quakers. Be- 
ing moved by the spirit, as they understand it, is be- 
ing temporarily possessed or inspired. 

And then in its secular application the primitive 
notion has left a trace in the qualitative distinction, 
still asserted by some, between genius and talent. 

There is but a nominal difference between the facts 
grouped under the head of inspiration, and the facts 
grouped under the head of divination. 

The diviner is simply the inspired man using his 
supernatural power for a particular end. Here, mark 
first, that bodily derangement, leading to mental per- 
turbation, is the usual preliminary. Fasting is requi- 
site. 

They said that the "continually stuffed body could 
not see secret things." 

Mark, next, that mental perturbation, rising to a 
certain point, is taken as proof of inspiration. 

And then mark, again, that his possession is proved 
by his success. We might allow, said doubters, that 
he is an Inyanga if you had concealed things for him 
to find, and he had discovered what you had con- 
cealed. 

The conception here, so clearly implied, is traceable 
in all directions. The chief difference is in the nature 
of th^ indwelling supernatural agent. 

97 



Ci)e OBtiolution of ^ettefg 

Such mode of living as produces abnormal excite- 
ment is everywhere a preparation for the diviner's 
office. Everywhere, too, this excitement is ascribed 
to the possessing ghost, demon, or divinity and the 
uttered words are his. 

All his words are no longer his, neither are his 
actions, but those of the deity who has entered into 
him. 

The semi-civilized and the civilized need only to be 
mentioned to show their relationship. 

Homer has represented that *'the gods maintain an 
intercourse with men as part of the ordinary course 
of their providence, and this intercourse consists prin- 
cipally in revelations of the divine will, and specially 
of future events, made to men by ocular voices." 

Here, we are shown, likenesses in nature, though 
some difference in form, between the utterances of 
the Greek oracle and those of the Zulu Inyanga, to 
whom the ancestral ghost says, "You will not speak 
with the people; they will be told by us everything 
they came to inquire about." 

Greater divination in non-essentials has left un- 
changed the same essentials in the notions current 
throughout Christendom, beginning with the "inspired 
writers," whose words were supposed to be those of 
an indwelling spirit, and ending with the Pope, who 
says his infallible judgments have a similar origin. 

These ideas inevitably develop further. When the 
ghost of an enemy has entered a man's body, can it 
not be driven out? 

And if this cannot otherwise be done, can it not be 
done by supernatural aid? 

If some men are possessed to their hurt by spirits 
of evil, while others are possessed to their benefit by 
friendly spirits, as powerful or more powerful, is it 
not possible, by the help of the good spirits, to undQ 

98 



C6e (SBfaoIution of n5tlit(s 

the mischief done by the bad ones, to conquer and ex- 
pel them by the aid of the good spirits? This possi- 
bility is reasonably inferred. Hence exorcism. 

Here, the medicine man is the primary exorcist. 
The original method is that of making the patient's 
body so disagreeable a residence that the demon will 
not stay in it. 

In some cases very heroic measures were adopted, 
as by the "Sumatrans, who, in cases of insanity, put 
the patient into a hut, which they set on fire, allowing 
him to escape the best he could." 

Various other extreme measures were probably 
adopted, including the swallowing of poisons, and 
that of making horrible smells, which were supposed 
to be disgusting to the intruder, 

Generally the exorcist tried to alarm the mischiev- 
ous tenants by shouts, and gesticulations, and fearful 
faces. 

But in the more developed form of exorcism, one 
demon is employed to drive out another. 

The medicine man or priest conquers the demon in 
the patient by the help of a demon by which he him- 
self is possessed ; or else he summons a friendly super- 
natural power to his aid. 

Everyone knows that, in this last form exorcism 
continued during civilization. 

In their earlier days the Hebrews employed some 
physical process, related to the processes we find 
among savages, such as making a dreadful stench by 
burning the heart and liver of a fish. 

Through such exorcism, taught by the angel Ra- 
phael, the demon Asmodeus was driven out, after 
which he fled to Egypt when having smelled the 
smoke. But later, as in the exorcism of Christ, the 
physical process was replaced by the compulsion of 
superior supernatural agency. 

99 



C6e OBtiolutiott of ^Beliefs 



In this form, exorcism still exists in the Roman 
Catholic church, which has specially ordained exor- 
cists; and it was daily practiced in the Church of 
England in the time of Edward the VI., when infants 
were exorcised before baptism, in the words, **I com- 
mand thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come 
out, and depart from these infants." 

And we read that exorcism was practiced to a date 
as late as 1665, if not later. At this time a clergy- 
man named Ruddle, licensed to exorcise by the Bishop 
Exeter, having then, according to his own account, 
succeeded in laying the ghost of a woman, by using 
the means appointed for dealing with demons, such 
as "magic circle, pentacle," etc. 

And this is not all. It has been an ecclesiastical 
usage, lasting down to Protestant times, to exorcise 
the water used in divine service, a practice still im- 
plying the primitive notion that invisible demons 
swarm everywhere. 

In this, as in the other cases, the original nature of 
the supernatural agent can still be traced. 

Malicious ghosts which annoy the living, because 
their bodies have been ill-treated, differ but little from 
evil spirits which vex the living by possessing them. 

The instance given above clearly implies that the 
laying of ghosts and the exorcism of demons are but 
modifications of the same thing. 

But we naturally expect that the processes would 
differentiate as civilization advances; so that while 
evil spirits are commanded or conjured, ghosts are 
pacified by fulfilling their requests. 

But since the meanings of ghost, spirit, demon, 
devil, and angel were at first the same, we may infer 
that what eventually became the casting out of a devil, 

JOO 



Cfte (gaolutiott of Igeliefg 

was originally expulsion of the malicious double of a 
dead man. 

A medicine-man who, helped by friendly ghosts, 
expels malicious ghosts, naturally asks himself 
whether he may not get ghostly aid for other pur- 
poses. Can he not by such aid revenge himself on 
his enemies, or achieve ends not otherwise possible ? 

The belief that he can, initiates sorcery. A primi- 
tive form of this belief, is shown us by the Kaffirs, 
who think dead bodies are restored to life by bad 
persons, and made hobgoblins to aid them in mischief. 
Here, we have direct identification of the familiar de- 
mon with the dead man. 

When we read that the Tahitians think sickness and 
death are produced by the incantations of priests, who 
induce the evil spirits to enter the sick; or when we 
have read that the misfortunes are attributed by the 
Austrahans "to the power which hostile tribes pos- 
sess over the spirits and demons which infest every 
corner of the land," we recognize the same notion less 
specifically stated. 

We have the fact written by Jewish writers that 
a "necromancer is defined as one who fasts and lodges 
at night among tombs, in order that the evil spirit may 
come upon him"; wherein we obtain a hint of a kin- 
dred beHef in an early historic race. 

And we see the connection between these original 
forms of the conception, and those derived forms of it, 
which have survived among the more civilized. 

The operations of the sorcerer have for their pri- 
mary end the gaining of power over the living, and 
for their secondary end, which eventually becomes 
predominant, the gaining of power over the souls of 
dead persons, or supernatural agents otherwise con- 
ceived, are guided by a notion which it will be in- 
structive to consider. 

lor 



Cfte OBtJDlutfon of belief? 



It has been originally supposed that the special 
power or property of an object is supposed to be pres- 
ent in all its parts. Such a mode of thinking prompted 
certain actions. Others now may be instanced. The 
belief that the qualities of any individual are appro- 
priated by eating him, is illustrated by the statement 
of Stanbridge, that when the Australians killed an 
infant, they fed a portion to a previously born child, 
beheving that by its eating as much as possible of 
the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both. 
Elsewhere dead relatives were consumed in pursuance 
of an allied belief. 

Such a belief is something similar to that of the 
Chinooks who, if photographed, "fancied that their 
spirit thus passed into the keeping of others, who 
could torment it at pleasure." 

Even the name is by some people made such an 
association. From this fact certain savages will not 
tell their names. 

We read that the Tasmanians would not even pro- 
nounce the name of a deceased friend, fearing that 
such might, if known, offend his shade. 

The facts thus grouped make sufficiently clear the 
general belief and practices of the sorcerer. 

Everywhere, he begins by obtaining a part of his 
victim's body, or something belonging to it, or some- 
thing that has been associated with his body, or else 
by making a representation of him. 

Sometimes a wooden image was used for his pa- 
tient's enemy, piercing it to the heart, and then in^ 
troducing powders, a method identical with a method 
indicated in stories of European witchcraft. 

During early times it was thought by Europeans 
dangerous to leave corpses unguarded, lest they should 
be mangled by the witches, which took from them 
the most choice ingredients composing their charms. 

102 



Cf)e dBtsoIution of IBeliefs 



The primitive notion that a man's name forms a 
part of him, and the derivative notion that calHng the 
dead by their names affects them and may offend 
them, originated the necromancer's notion of invo- 
cation. 

Everywhere, be it in the Hebrew legend of Samuel, 
whose ghost asks why he has been disquieted, or in 
an Icelandic saga, which describes ghosts severally 
summoned by name as answering to the summons, we 
get the evidence that possession of the name is sup- 
posed to give over the dead an influence similar to 
that which it is supposed to give over the living. 

Aside from the special interpretations, the general 
interpretation is sufficiently manifest. 

The primitive ghost theory, implying but Httle dif- 
ference between the dead and the living, fosters the 
notion that the dead can be acted on by arts similar 
to those which act on the living; and hence results 
that species of magic which, in its earlier form, is a 
summoning of the dead to get from them information, 
as the witch of Endor summons the spirit of Samuel, 
and in its later form is a raising of demons to help 
in mischief. 

Exorcism and sorcery insensibly pass into miracle. 
What difference exists refers less to the natures of 
the effects worked than to the characters of the agents 
working them. If the marvellous results are ascribed 
to a supernatural being at enmity with the observers, 
the art is sorcery ; but if ascribed to a friendly super- 
natural being, the marvellous results are classed as 
miracles. 

Such primitive notions have been well shown in the 
contest between the Hebrew priests and the magicians 
of Egypt. From Pharaoh's point of view, Aaron was 
an enchanter working by the help of a spirit antag- 
onistic to himself; while his own priests worked by 

103 



^fT" 



Dje ©solution of 15elief$ 



\i^ 



the help of his favoring gods. Contrariwise, from the 
point of view of the IsraeHtes, the achievements of 
their own leaders were divine, and those of their an- 
tagonists diabolical. But both believed that super- 
natural agency was employed, and that the more 
powerful supernatural agent had to be yielded to. 

And these ancient miracles, paralleled in their mean- 
ing by those of another, are now wrought every day 
in South Africa. 

By the "Bechnanas, missionaries are taken for an- 
other kind of rain-makers ; an old farmer seeing a 
cloud will say please let it rain for us." 

Rain being thus, in those arid regions, as in the 
East, synonymous with blessing, we find contests be- 
tween rain doctors or *'heaven-herds" like that be- 
tween Elijah and the priest of Baal. 

There are similar trials of strength and relative 
penalties for failure. 

Thus in the account of his captivity in Brazil, the 
old voyager, Hans Stade, saying, "God did a wonder 
through me," narrated how, at the request of two 
savages, he stopped by prayer a coming storm, which 
threatened to hinder their fishing, and that the savage 
Parwaa said, ''Now I see that thou hast spoken with 
thy God." Here heathen and Christian being per- 
fectly at one in their interpretation. 

The only difference of moment is the extent to which 
the supernatural agent who produces the miraculous 
effect at the instigation of the medicine-man, rain- 
maker, prophet, or priest, has diverged in ascribed 
nature from the primitive ancestral ghost. 

Simultaneously with the orders described in the 
past pages, there is another phenomena which we 
now approach. The primitive behef was that the ghosts 
entering the living produce convulsive actions, insan- 
ity, disease, and death, and as this belief developed, 

104 



Cfte OEtiolutton of ^elte(0 

these original supernatural agents conceived as caus- 
ing such evils, differentiated into supernatural agents 
of various kinds and forms possessed with different 
powers. With this theory of possession there have 
been contemplated certain sequences. 

Along with the belief in maleficent possession there 
exists a belief in beneficent possession, which is 
prayed for under the forms of supernatural strength, 
inspiration, or knowledge. 

Further, from the notion that maleficent demons can 
enter the body, there is developed the notion that they 
can be driven out, and hence the belief in exorcism. 

And then there comes the further idea that they 
may bfe otherwise controlled, or that they may be 
called to aid, whence comes enchantments and mir- 
acles. 

But if ghosts of the dead, or derived supernatural 
agents otherwise classed, can thus inflict evils on men 
when at enmity with them, or when amicable, can 
give them help and protection, will it not be wise so 
to behave as to gain their good-will? Evidently this 
is one of several policies which may be adopted. 

Supposed as these souls or spirits were to be living 
men in their perceptions and intelligence, they may be 
evaded and deceived. Or, as in the procedures above 
described, they may be driven away and defied. 

Or contrariwise, the course may be pursued of paci- 
fying them if angry, and pleasing them if friendly. 

This last course originates refigious observances 
in general, which we will now consider. In this we 
will find that the group of ideas and practices consti- 
tuting a cult has the same root with the groups of 
ideas and practices already described, which gradually 
diverge from them. 



105 



Cfte (JBtioIutfon of OSeUefe 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE STATEMENT OF CREATION. — ^THE 

GENESIS OF THE HEBREWS. — LIFE AND DEATH 

OF THEIR GOD. 

Having derived that fundamental verity contained 
in all religions, by our examination of ultimate relig- 
ious ideas considered in the past chapter, which, here- 
tofore, has given us positive conclusions, an extension 
of our examination to the statements of the Christian 
Bible will now be in order. 

Otherwise, no doubt, there would be those who 
would resort to this evidence in refutation to that 
which has been heretofore made, as it has been said 
many times that anything can be proven from the 
statements of the Bible. 

The reason for this is obvious. The written matter 
of the Scriptures consists of the primitive history of 
the Jews, including their laws, and their forms of 
worship ; an accepted superstitious beHef in mythology, 
dreams, visions, sorcery, witchcraft, demons, devils, 
prophecy, and miracle, along with a belief of invested 
supernatural power in men, who were supposed to be 
inspired. 

Such a compilation of agglutinated written matter, 
if accepted as a divine revelation, has only to be con- 
firmed by mystery, miracle, and prophecy to prove 
anything by it. 

The evidence given by miracle, in proof that the 
Bible is a divine revelation, is supposed to consist of 
those wonderful things known to be a violation of the 
laws which govern the regular actions of nature, and 
which a firm and unalterable experience has shown to 
have been established by the Creator. 

io6 



C&e €toolution of ^eliefe 

Hence, from the very nature of this fact, the proof 
against miracle is as entire as any argument from 
experience can possibly be made. 

When men, through policy or pious fraud, set up 
systems of religion incompatible with the words re- 
vealed to us in the operations of creation, which have 
been not only repugnant to the natural and universal 
government of the universe, but also to human com- 
prehension, they were under the necessity of invent- 
ing some word they could adopt that would serve as 
a bar to all questions of inquiry and speculation. 

For this use the word mystery has answered the 
necessary purpose, and thus it has happened that re- 
ligion, which within itself is without mystery, has 
been differentiated into an integrated system of mys- 
teries. 

At first, mystery was equal to all the demands re- 
quired, while miracle followed occasionally as a con- 
firming auxiliary to the mystic evidences rendered in 
proof of supernaturalism. 

Mystery bewildered the mind, miracle puzzled the 
senses. But now, before advancing, it becomes neces- 
sary to inquire what is to be understood by a miracle? 

As the whole creation is involved in mystery, so, 
in the same sense, everything in the universe, including 
all the varied miraculous operations, may be said to 
be a miracle; and no one thing is a greater miracle 
than another. 

The larger animal is no greater miracle than the 
smaller ; the mite is just as much a miracle as the ele- 
phant. To create an atom would be as much a miracle 
as to create a mountain. The almighty creative power 
experienced no more difficulty in creating millions of 
worlds than in creating one. 

In the sense of being and natural government, each 
individual particle of the universe is just as much a 

107 



Cf)e dBtooIution of IBelfefg 



miracle as is the whole universe, so that all creation 
is a miracle ; but miracle cannot be understood to have 
any application in the sense where it is used to mean 
a reversal of the laws governing the conditions of 
natural existence. 

Before man knew much about the extent of those 
laws that govern the operations of nature, we call 
natural, which have also been designated by the term 
powers of nature, he was not competent to judge 
whether the seeming wonderful and miraculous came 
within, or beyond, the natural power of action. 

Since, in the things not real, having strong resem- 
blances to the things which are, appearances are 
capable of deceiving. In such, there is no positive 
criterion to determine what constitutes a miracle ; and 
to give credit to appearances, under the idea that they 
are miracles, would continually impose upon our cred- 
ulity. 

And this is not all. To suppose that the Almighty 
would reverse the actions of nature obedient to the 
demands of human beings would subject the operator 
to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person 
who related them would be suspected of lying, and 
thus the very evidence intended to support the doc- 
trine would be suspected of being a fabulous inven- 
tion. 

Of all the modes ever invented to obtain a belief 
in some fixed system of religion, the evidence sup- 
posed to be furnished by miracle, however successful 
the imposition may have been, is the most incon- 
sistent. 

As to allege, first, that it is necessary to make a 
demonstration by supernatural means, causing a mani- 
festation in the reversal of naturally fixed and estab- 
lished conditions of nature, termed miracle, under any 

io8 



Cfie OBiJOlution of IBzlitf^ 

sense of the word, implies an unreasonable weakness 
in the doctrine preached. 

And, again, it is degrading to the infinite greatness 
of the Almighty Creator, whose character has been 
put to the level of a sleight-of-hand performer whose 
tricks are intended to amuse, excite wonder, and amaze 
the credulous. 

As the belief not depending upon the thing called 
a miracle itself, but upon the credit of the reporter 
who made the statement that he saw it, furnishes the 
most equivocal sort of evidence possible to produce; 
hence, if true, would have no more favorable chance 
in being believed than if it were a falsehood. 

If I should say, while writing, that a hand was 
presented before me, took hold of my pen, and wrote 
all the words herein written, would anyone believe me ? 
Would they believe the statement any more quickly 
had it been true? 

Having seen that a miracle is subject to the same 
fate as a falsehood, it is not to be supposed that the 
Almighty would use means unequal to the purpose 
for which they were intended, even were they 
wrought; this would be a great inconsistency in the 
commands of the Creator. 

To suppose a miracle something that must go en- 
tirely out of the regular course of nature to accom- 
plish the purpose for which it was intended, raises a 
question in the mind, very easily decided, whether it 
is more evident that nature deviated from her usual 
course, or that the man who witnessed the miracle 
related a "nonverity." 

We have never, in our whole lifetime, been con- 
scious of any deviation in the fixed laws that govern 
nature ; but, on the other side, we have ample reasons 
for believing that in this same time thousands of lies 
have been stated. Hence, it is a thousand to one more 

109 



Cf)e OBtooIutiott of n5tlit($ 

probable that the reporter of a miracle relates a false- 
hood. 

Though the whale is large enough to swallow a 
man, the narrative of its swallowing Jonah must be 
acknowledged as somewhat marvellous ; but had Jonah 
swallowed the whale, the circumstances would have 
more nearly approached the idea we form of a miracle. 

Suppose, however, that a whale did swallow Jonah, 
and that he lived three days in its stomach, and then 
was ejected; that only proves the diluted condition of 
the whale's gastric juice, or the weakness of its di- 
gestive organs; hence, we may infer that he could 
have lived within the whale even a day or so longer, 
or that he might have used its stomach for his per- 
manent abode. 

But, as before stated, if Jonah had swallowed the 
whale, the circumstances would have decided the ques- 
tion for all miracles; that is, is it more probable that 
a man swallowed a whale or related a non verity? 

Of all the things classed with miracles, the most 
extraordinary circumstance is related in the New Tes- 
tament, in that of the devil flying away with Jesus 
Christ to the top of a high mountain. While the devil 
under this circumstance promises him all the king- 
doms of the world, why did he not include America? 

The answer is, that during these miracle days the 
world was not known to be quite so large. However, 
our respect for the moral character of Christ is so 
great that we do not believe that he ever told it. 

Hence, to believe that this miracle was ever per- 
formed requires me to have more faith in the devil 
than I can reasonably possess. 

It therefore becomes very doubtful to my mind 
whether by any power, God or Satan, a miracle ever 
really took place. Yet, we have the Scriptures in 

no 



C6e (gaoimion of iBeliefg 

proof that not only God performs miracles, but that 
they are performed by other spirits. 

The clergy, in their opposition to spiritism give 
the following proof of this fact : 

"For they are the spirits of devils working miracles, 
which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of 
the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that 
great day of God Almighty." — Rev. xvi:i4. 

The wise clergy claims that the phenomena of spir- 
itism is all done by the devil. If not by the supreme 
fellow himself, then by his legions of subordinates, 
who people the atmosphere about our earth. 

Ask the minister to explain how the devil works 
these phenomena, and he will give you some kind of 
a negative answer; but, however, in the main it will 
be, that the devil is a worker of miracles, and that he 
has power to do things beyond our intellectual ability 
to explain. 

In further proof of this matter, that we have neither 
misapprehended nor misrepresented our statement of 
the subject, we will give a quotation from Mr. Grant: 

"They, the spirits, are deceiving men and women by 
the means of miracles, and leading a multitude to 
adopt the doctrines of devils, instead of the truth of 
the Bible." 

Now, my intelligent friends, by the text, the devil 
either works miracles or he does not. If he does not, 
the text, which states that he does, is false; but if he 
does work miracles, a miracle cannot be used as evi- 
dence in proof of any religion, for the identical miracle 
which is used in evidence to prove the truth of a re- 
ligion may have been worked by Satan. 

But ministers know the Bible to be true by the 
miracles which have been wrought in attestation of 
its truth. In Egypt, the miracles wrought by Moses 
were mostly duplicated by the Egyptians. 

Ill 



Cfie (SBboIution of ^eliefg 

The devil not having been credited with any of these 
miracles, they prove as much for the magicians as 
they do for Moses. 

But again our clerical friends claim that only "God 
alone has the power to work miracles, which he has 
done in confirmation of the Bible's vaHdness." 

If this statement is true, the text quoted is wrong. 
However, we again assert that the devil is either a 
worker of miracles, or he is not. 

Suppose the devil is a miracle worker, as the text 
alleges. Yet a miracle would not prove the validness 
of the Bible ; as, if he is a miracle worker, how do we 
know to the contrary but that Satan wrought the very 
miracles by which the Bible is proven to be of divine 
origin? 

Hence, the devil is not a worker of miracles, or else 
miracles are not evidence in proof of the Bible's valid- 
ity. But if the devil is not a worker of miracles, 
then the above quoted text is false, for it asserts : 
'They are spirits of devils working miracles." 

Considering miracles from every point of view, in 
which it is possible to place them, make their reality 
improbable and their existence unnecessary. 

There would be no useful purpose answered even 
were they true. For the acceptance of a moral prin- 
ciple without a miracle presents much less difficulty 
than to accept the belief as true on the base of evi- 
dence established by a miracle. 

The words of moral principle are spoken univer- 
sally unassisted. Miracle could only have been some- 
thing seen for the moment, and then only by a few 
persons, after which a transfer of the faith is required 
to be made from the Creator to man sufficient to en- 
able him to believe the miracle upon man's testimony. 

Instead of accepting that system of religion claim- 
ing to be founded on the marvellous evidence fur- 

112 



Cfie OBiioIutiott of T5tlit($ 

nished through the recitals of miracles, it ought to 
arouse our suspicions of the mythical constructions of 
language made by men. Here, as everywhere, a full 
and upright character of truth demands that miracle 
be rejected, and that fable appropriately assist that 
which truth rejects. Thus as a change was made on 
the past by mystery and miracle, so the future tenses 
of faith were squared up by prophecy. 

It was not sufficient for man to know the past, but 
that which is to come. The prophet was the sup- 
posed historian of the future. In the event that the 
prophet happened to be directly wrong, it was only 
necessary to say as at Nineveh, that God had repented 
and changed his mind. 

What an infidel fabulous systems of religion have 
made man ! 

Dreams have already been devoted to a special 
chapter in this book, but these, prophecy and other 
Biblical myths, will be again touched upon in their 
proper connection while treating our general subject. 

However, before examining the Bible statements, 
let us assert that we shall, with all respect to human- 
ity and no less as a duty to ourselves, determine by 
the rule of truth obtained through our experience and 
the meaning of language, examine the evidence to see 
wherein it coincides with facts, and what the evidence 
proves. 

Should the Bible language not be of divine origin, 
we must look to human invention for its authority. 
But previously to questioning the accounts given by the 
various and different alleged writers of the Bible, it 
becomes necessary to compare them to see in what 
way they will harmonize; as, at once, it must be ad- 
mitted that in statements especially divine, no less 
than in all vulgar ones, the contained truths must all 
agree. 

113 



Cf)e (gaolution of nStUtts 

To arrive at a definite understanding of the Bible 
language, it must be interpreted in its literal sense; 
while our idea of deity, as outlined in this investiga- 
tion, must be confined, in the language of the Bible, 
to a human individual, who was a ruling potentate, 
the executive head, and god of the Hebrews. 

That such are the undisputable facts will be defi- 
nitely shown by the evidence furnished in this his- 
tory. 

Keeping these salient points before the mind, we 
will have no difficulty to interpret the language of the 
Bible. 

The scientific view of creation having been already 
noticed, we will now advance to a consideration of 
Christian mythology to account for the theistic hy- 
pothesis, or creation by external agency. 

In the statements made in Genesis, the language 
used in favor of the Theistic hypothesis is very defi- 
nitely asserted, the statements implying that God is a 
human being. 

If this is true, as the evidence implies, then the 
Genesis of creation, by the Bible account, is clothed 
in mythical robes. 

In the statement of the supposed Mosaic account, 
the Hebrew God is the one to whom reference is made. 
If we find that these statements are neither true nor 
made by the Creator, they at once cease to have 
divine authority, and cannot be accepted as valid evi- 
dence of the things alleged in the Scriptures. 

Our object in this investigation is to weigh the 
evidence, determine its source, divine character, and 
whether it is true or false. 

An examination of the accounts given by different 
authors alleged to be the inspired writers of the di- 
vine statements, should not fail to present the facts 
to our investigation. 

114 



Cf)e (ffiiiolution of IBtlitds 

The marginal dates of the Bible show that four 
thousand and four years before Christ the Hebrew 
God "created the heaven and the earth." 

It is implied by this account that after the creation 
the firmament and the entire earth were submerged 
in a body of water, that is, the whole world was cov- 
ered with a solid body of water; as God said, ''Let 
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and 
let it divide the waters from the waters." 

In favor of this theory, we have the corroborative 
evidence given in the further statement: 

"And God made the firmament and divided the 
waters which were under the firmament from the 
waters which were above the firmament." Here the 
only proof given of the validness of the statement is, 
"and it was so." To read this seventh verse in its 
real sense gives us the following version, namely : 

"And God made the heaven and divided the waters 
which were under the heaven from the waters which 
were above the heaven, and it was so." 

That our version has been correctly rendered is 
shown in conformity with the language of the eighth 
verse, "And God called the firmament heaven." In 
this statement firmament and heaven are synonymous 
terms, and have the same identical meaning. 

Hence, we have been sucessful in locating heaven, 
and if the statements are true, have learned that above 
the firmament there is a body of water. Science having 
demonstrated that this is a non-valid statement, we 
hence infer that it has not been made by the Creator. 
To allege that he is the author of this account is the 
same as to assert that he is the author of a non-truth- 
ful statement. In refraining to do so, we incline to 
the negative view, that he did not make the statement. 

But if it is found that the Hebrew God did com- 
municate this statement to Moses, then our only al- 

115 



Ci)e (Eiiolution of beliefs 

ternative to escape the evidence of a non-truth, is to 
assign a human creator to account for the genesis of 
the universe as well as for the authority of its history. 

Here we meet no difficulty in ascribing human au- 
thority for its history, but to ascribe human power to 
account for the genesis of the universe is beyond our 
conceptions of everything in nature. 

As represented in this ancient Bible story of crea- 
tion, the facts do not coincide with our knowledge of 
the Scriptural accounts. 

The thing called religion was fitted to satisfy the 
ideas held concerning a ''flat earth," which was be- 
lieved to have "corners and ends." 

Such a doctrine entertained the idea that above the 
earth in the firmament, as we have already seen, is 
heaven, while in that fiery abyss under the earth the 
existence of which was once proven by the phenomena 
of volcanoes, is the supposed place for everlasting 
punishment. 

In these ages before the discoveries of science to 
guide them, had a Christian been in "America," and 
one in "China," at the same time pointing toward 
heaven, they would have pointed in opposite direc- 
tions, and in pointing to hades they would have 
pointed toward one another. 

In former times anyone could point to heaven by 
"pointing up," and by pointing downward he was 
equally successful in pointing to "Satan and hades." 

But after "Giordino Bruno" discovered the "ro- 
tundity and revolution" of the earth, the Church has 
not been quite so certain about either place. The facts 
are, that many of the wisest ministers are to-day at a 
loss to locate either place. 

The reason is that by Bruno's discovery the founda- 
tion was knocked out of an orthodox hades, while 
Galileo's telescope dislocated heaven. 

Ii6 



Cfie evolution of 15elief0 



The Church, having been displeased, for some un- 
warrantable reason, at Bruno's destruction of hades, 
burned him at the stake. They killed the man, but 
the facts of his discovery still live. 

The opinion that the earth is in motion was of "all 
heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the 
most scandalous." 

It was urged for Galileo's telescope, by "one Cal- 
vins" that ''the devil had enabled him to invent an 
instrument to distort man's vision and make things 
appear as they were not." 

By the anonymous authority of Genesis, for which 
the subject matter is unauthenticated, we are to un- 
derstand that by the utterance of a mere word the 
heaven and the earth were created, not out of any 
material thing, but out of nothing. 

The universe, being yet in darkness, he next created 
the sun. 

In the cosmogony of this creation we see that the 
earth was made the central figure of the whole uni- 
verse. 

Why did not God create the sun before the other 
members of the world? Had he created the sun be- 
fore the others he would have had his light in which 
to work 

Investigating the subject further, it is found that 
to create the heaven, earth, and sun, only required 
one day; for he distinguished between light and dark- 
ness after creating them, by asserting that the evening 
and the morning were the first day. Here, the state- 
ment definitely implies that one day means absolutely 
the lapse of time between two risings of the sun. 

By further investigating the subject, it may be de- 
termined that the whole universe was created in only 
six days, a day here meaning twenty-four hours of 
time. This statement cannot be understood to be fig- 



^— ^— — — .^— — — ^ 

urative ; it is made definite by a reference to the rising 
and setting of the sun, expressed in the words, **even- 
ing and the morning," which must be understood in 
the same hteral sense, that we now use the word day. 

Should we not accept this statement in its literal 
sense, it would necessitate a denial of the things al- 
leged in the assertion, and that the God of the He- 
brews did not create all things in six days. 

If we would accuse these statements of being il- 
literate, it would indirectly accuse the God of the 
Hebrews guilty of making false statements, which 
would be an accusation that he is ignorant or other- 
wise that he is not the author of the accounts. 

If this were done, it would place the Bible at once 
on non-authoritative ground, or else otherwise show 
that God was illiterate or intentionally non-truthfuL 

But, however, under what the Christians denomi- 
nate the New Dispensation, Simon Peter, an apostle 
of Jesus Christ, asserts, "that one day with the Lord 
is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one 
day." 

Who is the author of this statement? The truth 
is desired, often the demand has been previously made, 
but no one has ever given a satisfactory answer. It 
might be supposed that a revelation from the Creator 
would come to man with such force and clearness as 
to settle all uncertainties and overwhelm all opposi- 
tion. 

This being a momentous occasion, the truth is again 
demanded. It affects in regard to the statement of 
Simon Peter, the authenticity of the creation, the age 
of the universe, and the length of time it was in course 
of construction. Simon Peter's statement in refer- 
ence to a day's length is very much at variance with 
that as implied by the account given in Genesis. 

An inexorable logic proves that if the statement of 
ii8 



C&e (KtJOlution of 15tlit(s 

one is true, the other is false; the truth of the one 
implies the falsit}^ of the other. 

Having determined the true length of a day, 
as given in Genesis, to be the true length of a day, the 
day of a thousand years, as mentioned by Simon Peter, 
must necessarily be a false statement, whatever its 
divineness may be. 

Thus showing that Simon Peter's statement is un- 
true, we hence infer that it is not the word of the 
Creator and cannot, therefore, be a divine revelation. 

But the truth might be evaded in favor of Simon 
Peter's statement, by saying that his assertion was not 
made until after Joshua stayed the sun by a miracle, 
which would be equivalent to telling a lie to clothe 
another one. 

It is further alleged that after he created the uni- 
verse God said, "Let us make man in our own image, 
after our own likeness." 

Here, God is represented as a mortal being, who 
held a conversation in the identical fashion of men, 
which occurred in the councils of eternity. To whom 
had God his conversation? It was not addressed to 
man, for he had not been created. But the language 
of the text definitely implies that a conversation was 
held among different beings, whom God desired to 
assist in man's creation. 

Before man was created he could not have ad- 
dressed his conversation to him, hence he must have 
addressed it to other component gods. 

Theologians claim that this indicates proposals and 
promises having been made by the Father and the 
Son ; and that these proposals were acceded to by the 
Son, and a fulfillment of the promises claimed by him 
on the accomplishment of his work. 

Hence, it naturally follows, that there were a plural- 
ity of gods, who were all jointly concerned in the 

119 



Cfte (Eijolutiott of 15elief0 

creation of man, as the words, "Let us," are very 
strongly expressive of plurality. 

Were there only one God, he must have addressed 
the conversation to himself, as existing in the plural 
number. 

But we find inculcated in the Bible the doctrine of 
a Trinity, which must be militating to a Unity. The- 
ologians claim that this is owing to erroneous views 
taken of the Trinity. 

They say "that there are not three Gods, and evade 
the inconsistency of these literal statements," which 
are inconceivable with the Unity of God, by claiming 
that the Trinity, as meant by the sacred writers, has 
three persons, but only one God-head. 

And yet, for all the difficulty to combine them, there 
are three identified, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
while in the very next breath it is asserted that God 
is not three and one in the same sense and one in an- 
other sense. 

Therefore, they drop the subject by admitting that 
"it is a mystery, and was so intended by God," "that it 
is not a contradiction in terms, because it is reconcil- 
able with enlightened reason, that in three modes of 
subsistence there is an undivided divine essence." 
The Bible says nothing about this divine essence. It 
represents them as persons, and in the acceptation of 
the terms to be so understood. However, we desire 
to know who recorded the conversation alleged to 
have been held with his components, concerning this 
special creative act? 

As before man's creation there were no human be- 
ings to record the conversation, at the time it took 
place, and there being no others in existence excepting 
the gods themselves, who have not been the alleged 
authors of the narrative, we hence infer that it was not 
recorded for many years after having taken place. 

120 



C6e €i)Olutfon of T5tlitf$ 



In such an event it becomes hearsay testimony, and 
hence being unauthenticated and non-valid evidence, 
we do not accept it as proof to confirm the statements 
recorded in Genesis, either in reference to the crea- 
tion of the universe nor that of man. Rating such 
statements in the catalogue of mythical narratives, we 
have no reason to believe that they were the words of 
our Creator. 

The Scriptures represent the God of the Hebrews 
without ''beginning and without end." 

Had he begun to be, he would be dependent, not the 
first being and therefore not God. By the words, *'no 
beginning and no end," we literally understand that 
there has been no change in his nature, or in his ex- 
istence. 

If this statement be true, then the Trinity, or the 
three persons identified in the same God-head, have 
always been coeternal. 

But how could the Son coexist with the Father co- 
eternally? And, yet, if this is not true, God has been 
changeable, which is evidence in negation to the state- 
ment of his constancy as alleged by the terms of the 
account. 

On following the history of the creation a little 
further, we find that on the sixth day and out of the 
dust of the earth it pleased God to create the first liv- 
ing man, into whose nostrils he breathed the breath 
of life, and he became a living soul. 

He -next created woman from one of Adam's ribs, 
some believing at the present time that in consequence 
of this, man has one fewer ribs than a woman. 

This account in its history of genesis, assigns a 
Creator. But where and when were heaven and earth 
created? Were they created in the world? 

If they were created in the world, then the world 
must have existed before the creation of heaven and 

121 



C6e (gtiolution of nstlkts 

earth ; but if heaven and the earth were created first, 
and that they jointly constitute the world, then the 
world was created in the world before the world ex- 
isted, which we are to understand was created out of 
nothing. 

Such being preposterous, and opposed to manifest 
truth, reason, and sound judgment, while further sup- 
posing a total inversion in the order of nature, we do 
not beHeve it. 

Yet we are told by theologians that these are re- 
vealed facts ; that they must be accepted as valid truths 
without question, as a divine revelation of science 
admits of no improvement, no change, no advance. 

It discourages as needless, and indeed as presump- 
tuous, all new discovery, considering it as an unlawful 
prying into things, which the Hebrew God purposely 
intended to conceal. 

What, then, is that sacred science, which was af- 
firmed by the fathers to be the sum of all knowledge ? 

Being too anthropomorphic, it likened all phenom- 
ena, both natural and spiritual, to human acts ; it sees 
in the Almighty the Eternal, only a gigantic man: a 
personality possessing weak and human attributes. 

Creating all things in six days, making the earth 
the central figure of the system, with the sun and all 
the stars subservient to her, and man the central fig- 
ure of the earth, which has been found to be an au- 
thenticated statement but not scientifically true, he 
placed Adam and Eve, a happy and innocent pair, in 
paradise, a garden which had been planted by the 
Lord, but it does not state in what way, with every 
tree and shrub that could beautify it. 

In addition to many other varieties of trees in this 
garden, which was located Eastward in Eden, there 
were two particular trees of dififerent varieties. One 
of them in the midst of the garden was named the 

122 



Cfte Ciiolutfott of IBtUtfg 



"tree of life;" the other one was named the tree of 
knowledge of "good and evil." 

Adam and Eve, having been created perfect, but by- 
implication ignorant, they were permitted to Hve in 
this beautiful garden, under a command to eat of 
every tree excepting the tree of knowledge of ''good 
and evil." Eventually they were made wise by the 
most ''subtle serpent of all the field." 

God considered this a sin, to which original trans- 
gression he attached a penalty : a sentence made pun- 
ishable by death to the whole human family. As im- 
plied in this express command, why did God desire to 
keep man in ignorance? 

If we believe that the Almighty possesses the at- 
tributes of infinite goodness, wisdom, intelligence, and 
the creative power to make man, in the likeness and 
image of his Creator, and again believe that he then 
commanded man not to do that which would give him 
wisdom, not only of the things in their nature good 
and evil, but would disallow man the means of intelli- 
gence to differentiate between them, further necessi- 
tates us to believe an inconsistency incompatible to 
the attributes of man's Creator, which gives us a con- 
ception of the Almighty's nature averse to that which 
we believe to be true. 

And not only this, but the evidence implies that God 
purposely desired man to remain ignorant, or else 
gain his knowledge of the things good and evil under 
an act of disobedience to divine law. These state- 
ments yield evidences of an implied fable, and are 
hence invalid accounts. 

Not being compatible with a divine nature, nor with 
our conception of his infinite perfectness, we reject 
them on the ground that they are neither divine nor 
the words of our Creator. 

The fruit of a tree that has the property of im- 
123 



Cfte OBiJOlution of 'Beliefs 



parting knowledge to a man after eating it, should 
not be rejected from his dietary. 

A proper understanding of good and evil principles 
might lead to true sentiments differentiated between 
feelings of right and wrong action. 

In this particular account, given by the Hebrews, of 
man's genesis and fall, a very subtle serpent figures 
conspicuously prominent. Through its superior in- 
telligence, it beguiled Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, 
contrary to God's command, which made her wise. 

If the account of this command is a true statement 
of the facts, there is a tacit implication that God's 
desire was to have man remain ignorant, in which 
condition he was created. Why did God require man 
to remain in this condition? 

It must be said in favor of the serpent that his acts 
toward Eve show a greater manifestation of justice 
for man than the Hebrew God does with all his infinite 
goodness. 

In the Hebrew account we are to understand that 
their God was infinitely perfect, omnipotent, omnipres- 
ent, unlimited, in space as well as in time. Having 
been indefinitely large in extent, and without limita- 
tion in his attributes of power, capacity, and moral 
excellence, he created man in his own likeness and 
image. If it is true that the God of the Hebrews was 
the Almighty Creator, who possessed all the alleged 
attributes of infinite goodness, justice, wisdom, and 
power, how was it compatible with his nature that 
he desired man to remain ignorant and a serpent to 
be highly intelligent? 

If the theologians affirm that it was not God's de- 
sire for man to remain ignorant, then it seems to me 
that his statements are an infinite mistake. But if 
God purposely intended man to remain in such a con- 
dition, then he preferred to endow the serpent with 

124 



Cfte OBiJOlution of IBtlitts 



the greater intelligence. But if it was not his desire 
to endow the serpent with greater intelligence than 
that of man, then his creative power was thwarted by 
limitation of infinite wisdom, which is an absurdity. 

To evade this dilemma you may take the position of 
the theologians, and assert that Eve's beguiler, who 
administered to her the fruit of wisdom, was the per- 
son of Satan in the form of a serpent; but such an 
assertion does not coincide with the facts alleged in 
the history. 

In the estimation of the writers of this mythical 
story, it may have been a diaboHcal crime for a ser- 
pent to impart wisdom to the first created woman, but 
the account given in Genesis does not say that their 
God created Satan in the identity of a serpent, but 
that the serpent was the most "subtle of all the beasts 
of the field which the Lord God created." Here, as 
elsewhere, the devil should be exempted from the 
charges ; there are none against him. If he is a fallen 
angel, as many claim, man's creation must have pre- 
ceded his existence; hence the devil, not having been 
created at this time, he is an innocent party to the 
charges made against him by theologians. 

We are further informed through this history that 
there was a sentence passed upon the serpent, by 
which it was cursed above all the beasts of the field, 
and forced by a penalty of divine law to go upon 
**its belly and eat dust all the days of its life." 

If this account must be accepted as a literal state- 
ment of the facts, we hence infer that God had no 
desire for any of his created creatures to be wise ; but 
preferred that they remain without the knowledge of 
either good or evil. 

These are characteristic attributes indicative of hu- 
man nature. But we must accept the statements lit- 

125 



Cf)e (gbolution of ^Beliefs 

erally and undoubtingly, as they should be viewed in 
no other sense. 

We are to believe that God not only walked about 
the Garden of Eden, holding a conversation with 
Adam and Eve; but that he conversed with the ser- 
pent as he did with Eve, and the serpent conversing 
wath him as it did with Eve; in the same character- 
istic manner appropriate to human beings. 

To believe that this account is a statement of em- 
bodied facts, necessitates us to believe in something 
contrary to everything governed by natural law. We 
hold, in view under the hypothetical theory of the in- 
finite universe, such an account is incompatible with 
everything reasonable. Why this mythical history has 
been called the Mosaic account of creation no one on 
earth is able to conceive, as the chronological account 
of it dates four thousand and four years before Christ. 
The age of Moses at his death was one hundred and 
twenty years, which occurred one thousand four hun- 
dred and fifty-one years before Christ. By using the 
marginal dates, a simple process in subtraction gives 
two thousand four hundred and thirty-three years from 
the creation to the birth of Moses. Now, it becomes 
evident to my mind that, if Moses wrote this account, 
it was written from a mythical tradition. 

We believe that Moses was too much of an expert 
judge to permit his name to be used as authority to 
any fabulous narrative of this nature, which the Bible 
dates show to have taken place nearly twenty-five hun- 
dred years before Moses was born. 

That this is a traditional account is manifest from 
the manner in which it begins. 

It commences abruptly; it is not addressed to any 
particular person ; there is no one who speaks or hears ; 
the supposed author is unknown to all humanity; he 

126 



Cfie OBtiol ution of TSeliefg 



not only has no name, but has neither first, second, 
nor third person; hence, having no voucher, is an 
evident criterion, that it is nothing more than an un- 
authenticated tradition. 

That Moses is the author of the account as alleged 
is an unfounded opinion, and is entirely without af- 
firmative evidence. 

Everything in Genesis is nearly twenty-five hundred 
years prior to his birth ; and while the style of writing 
is entirely in the manner of another person speaking 
of Moses, there is hence no allusion made to him as 
an authority. 

The facts alone furnish ample evidence that we have 
no reasons even to suppose that it was written by 
him. 

In the conclusion of this mythical account of crea- 
tion, we must assert that there is very little evidence in 
favor of the Mosaic authorship, and what little there 
is in his favor, does not stand before the test of criti- 
cism. The history presents all the evidence of an 
unauthenticated myth; and hence is a non-vahd state- 
ment. Being contrary to everything natural, we do 
not believe the absurdities embodied in the history, 
and it cannot be, therefore, a divine revelation. 

The evidence being so strong against the divine 
authorship of Genesis, what shall we conclude con- 
cerning the divineness of the other portions of Scrip- 
ture ? 

The foundation of the Bible being thus without 
divine support, weakens the truth of all its other 
parts; so that by its negative view it presents all the 
characteristic evidences of a primitive structure of 
human invention, involving the creation of the uni- 
verse in no less a mystery than that heretofore pre- 
sented. 

127^ 



Ctje ggbolution oi n5tlit(» 

If it is shown that the God of the Hebrews was a 
mortal being, we will have proven that none of the 
Bible history has been inspired by our Creator. 

The history shows that Adam and Eve were per- 
mitted to live in this beautiful garden of Eden until 
after they sinned. They were then turned out of 
paradise, and from this one pair sprung all the na- 
tions of the world. Their two sons, Cain and Abel, 
provoked by envy at the divine approbation of his 
brother's offering, Cain slew his righteous brother 
and brought upon himself the curse of the Almighty. 
Of this murderer the historian gives some account, 
tracing his descendants through several generations. 

In this connection, we specially notice that it is 
avowedly asserted by the language used in the text, 
that "Cain went out from the presence of the Lord 
unto the land of Nod on the East of Eden, and there 
knew his wife." 

This history tacitly implies in its construction an 
inconsistency. Who was Cain's wife? Up to this 
time in the age of the world the history only includes 
four created human beings; and now that Abel was 
killed, and Eve being the first and only woman, whom 
did Cain marry? Did he marry a female human 
being ? 

An implication answers that he did ; and if this be 
true, then there were more human beings on earth 
than those of Adam's family. 

Such an implication makes it evident, to me, that 
there were many other people on earth not included 
in the history of Adam's family, and that in point of 
time there were ancestors of people who inhabited 
the earth many generations before Adam. 

But you may answer that God could have manu- 
factured Cain's wife out of one of his ribs; but such 

128 



C!)e OBtiolution of T5elief0 



a feat has been excluded from this account by the 
silence of its history. 

However, in the land of Nod, where Cain built 
the city Enoch, the numbers of women seems to have 
been in excess of the requirements; Lamech had two. 

In place of Abel was born Seth, whose posterity is 
specially noticed down to the time of Noah, when 
God, by his just wrath, as though wrath is ever just, 
at the apostasy and prevailing wickedness of the hu- 
man race, brought upon the world a universal deluge, 
which destroyed the whole race of man excepting 
Noah and his family. 

The apostasy of the people provoking the wrath of 
God to destroy the world was occasioned by the "sons 
of God marrying the daughters of men." — Gen. vi:i. 
This Scriptural quotation has been explained in an- 
other part of this book by the Hebrew legend. It will 
suffice that when savages, who call themselves men, 
are conquered by savages who call themselves other- 
wise, but proven by conquest to have that superiority 
which, in the primitive mind, was equivalent to divin- 
ity ; clearly, the names of the conquering and the con- 
quered will become equivalent, in their meaning, to 
gods and men. 

Indeed, in some instances, the name necessitates 
this appellation. 

In this instance it appears from the evidence that 
the sons of God were the colored Acadians, while 
the daughters of men were fair. 

After the deluge, Noah became the progenitor of the 
post-diluvian race, as the world, we are told, was 
peopled by his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, lo- 
cating in Asia, Europe, and Egypt. But the extent of 
the whole world with the ancients was not large, 
the end of it being where the expanse of the hori- 

129 



Cfie (gaolution of nstlitts 

zon seems to meet the earth. It is probable that had 
they known anything of America's existence, Noah 
might have had another son to populate her. 

But at this time, America being unknown, they 
made no provision for her population. Hence, it is 
more than probable that the Indians were saved from 
this universal catastrophe through the misfortune of 
the patriarch's ignorance of their existence, as at 
present it is not presumed that the first race of In- 
dians were destroyed by a universal or general flood. 

But Paul, in his instructions to the Athenians, af- 
firms that "God hath made of one blood all the na- 
tions of the earth." If this is a true statement of the 
facts, we must say that the exercise of God's wrath 
in the destruction of the world was a murderous crime 
to his subjects. 

However, we are justified in our opinion that it is 
only a mythical narrative, and is not a statement of 
the real facts. 

Having no Scriptural account given for the genesis 
of the Indians, or ancient Mexicans, we would be 
pleased to know who created them? Since the Scrip- 
tures keep silence on this subject, they seem to have 
had no knowledge of their existence ; while the the- 
ologians ask is not this of the generations of man 
true? 

Who can disprove it ? This is a question that would 
be more appropriately put if we should ask, who can 
prove it? 

In eating the forbidden fruit, and thus to trans- 
gress the Hebrew law, man brought ruin to himself 
and all his posterity. In consequence of this trans- 
gression, in what would seem to be very unreasonably 
unjust laws, the sacred writers now represent the hu- 
man family as very depraved. Resulting from such 
circumstances of depravity, there is brought forth a 

130 



Cfee €boIutiott of 'Beliefs? 



developed scheme of redemption, which, as claimed by 
theologians, occupied four thousand years. 

They claim that shortly after man's creation, or soon 
after his apostasy, intimations were given of a coming 
Savior, and that, as additional ages rolled on, addi- 
tional communications relative to him, and his work, 
were made to mankind. 

These communications are termed prophecies, and 
are used in evidence to establish the divine doctrine 
of the Bible. 

In this scheme it is first alleged that if a consulta- 
tion took place between the sacred three in the God- 
head, at the creation of man, which were acceded by 
the Father to the Son, in this instance, then we must 
accept the doctrine that the Son has existed coeter- 
nally with the Father. 

But how is it possible for the son, being the off- 
spring, to be infinitely as old in point of time? They 
answer this absurdity by an assertion that it is a mys- 
tery. Very soon we will have been informed that all 
the unreasonable things in the Bible are very easily 
explained by using the word mystery as its interpre- 
tation ; but, believing the word myth more suitable for 
such statements, we use it instead of the word mys- 
tery. 

Such a word expresses the facts clearly, and needs 
no explanation. 

The prophesies relating to Christ, which have been 
recorded in the Scriptures, are as numerous as they 
are different in nature, to say that they are very in- 
teresting in their nonreality. 

The theologians claim that Christ was to be of the 
seed of Abraham, which is not true, as we will show 
further on ; that he was to belong to the tribe of Judah, 
and from the immediate family of David. 

In the headlines to the twelfth chapter of Genesis, 

131 



€:ht OBiJOlution of 15elief0 

we read that *'God calleth Abraham and blesseth him 
with a promise of Christ." 

Noticing this quotation particularly, we perceive 
that it does not occur in the text of the chapter. In 
the text God has not said anything about the coming 
of Christ as the theologians would have you believe. 

The only thing stated in the language of a promise, 
is rendered in the third verse, as follows: "And in 
thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." 
But this promise, while it makes no reference to the 
coming of Christ, is even made conditionally, that 
Abraham move from his native country, Haran, to 
the land of Canaan, on which event the God of the 
Hebrews only promises a blessing by making him the 
head of a great nation. But on turning to the fifteenth 
chapter of Genesis, we notice that Abraham is prom- 
ised a son, and a numerous seed, that is all. These 
accounts yield no evidence, either directly or indi- 
rectly, that can have any reference, whatsoever, to the 
coming of Christ. Hence, we infer that God has not 
made a prophesy concerning the coming of Christ. 
This has been the work of the church or priesthood. 

In now turning to the book of the generations of 
Christ, the son of David, and the so-called son of 
Abraham, to the birth of Christ, are forty-two genera- 
tions. 

In this genealogy we find the statement that Abra- 
ham begat Isaac ; but the evidence implies that this is 
a false statement. 

We will produce the evidence in reference to Isaac's 
paternal origin, in speaking again of the promises 
God made to Abraham. 

In the headlines of the eighteenth chapter of Gene- 
sis, we read that Abraham entertained three angels on 
the plains of Mamre, one of whom he addressed by 
the use of the title, "My Lord." 

132 



Clje (Eteolutfon of lBeIief0 



While it is true that Abraham addressed one of 
these visitors with the title given to superior persons, 
whom he believed able to do all things, we class as 
supernatural, yet he only ascribes to him the common 
character of a primitive potentate, who were frequently 
magicians as well as rulers, similar to Solomon. 

The interrogation here theologians raise is the usual 
question : Who were these three men ? Was the chief 
of them Jehovah, his angel, or his son ? 

Necessarily this is not the question. The question 
refers to what Abraham thought, or is described as 
thinking by those who preserved the tradition. 

In this conversation there is no indication that Abra- 
ham suspects supernaturalness in any of the three, nor 
when Sarah laughs at the promise that she is to have 
a son, it does not appear that she imagines herself in 
the presence of any one greater than that of a human 
being. 

The history implies that Abraham ascribes powers 
to him, such as savages now ascribe to Europeans, but 
he implies no more. 

And the Scriptures definitely state that when Abra- 
ham "lifted up his eyes, lo, three men stood by him," 
it does not say three angels. 

The history here yields indirect evidence that the 
person whom Abraham salaams as his Lord is a terres- 
trial ruler. 

And it yields direct evidence that this potentate was 
a mortal human being, whose name we will find from 
the evidence given later on was God. He was the same 
identical person who prophesied to Abraham the de- 
struction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who smote some of 
the Sodomites blind on being approached while he 
stood in the door to Lot's house. 

But such results of a fist-to-fist fight, in its nature, 

133 



Cf)e OBtoolution of TSeliefs 

cannot be attributed to the supernatural, but completely 
show all the evidences of a human nature. 

Two of these men angels, while staying in Lot's 
house all night, washed their feet and feasted in the 
same manner that all other earthly individuals do, who 
have such favorable circumstances of plenty to eat, 
withal a good appetite. 

Angels do not feast upon earthly foods, even if their 
spirits materialize. 

We believe in real Spiritism, but do not believe this 
Scriptural story of it. 

If Abraham conceived the Lord, to whom he talked, 
to be a local ruler, then the conclusion is reached that 
the modern Semitic idea of a deity is similar to the an- 
cient idea. But if Abraham otherwise conceived this 
person not as a local ruler, but as the Maker of All 
Things, then he must have believed that the heavens 
and the earth were originated by one who converses, 
eats, drinks and feels weary after walking. 

If these were his conceptions of a deity, they still 
remain identical with his representative, and with that 
of the uncivilized in general. 

And this individual whom Abraham salaams as My 
Lord, and who is shown by the implied evidence to be a 
mortal being, was he, to whom Abraham made the 
covenant, or contract, for all the land of Canaan. And 
in addition he promises Abraham a son, but in his 
promise there is not the least utterance of anything 
that can refer to the coming of Christ, as has been no- 
ticed heretofore. 

''At the time appointed I will return unto you accord- 
ing to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son." 
Gen. xviii 114. 

And we read again in Gen. xxi : 1-2 vs., that ''the 
Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did 
unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived 

134 



C6e (iEtioIutfon of TBtlitfs 

and bare Abraham a son, whose name was called 
Isaac." 

What did the Lord do to Sarah to cause her to con- 
ceive? While it is not vowedly asserted in the Scrip- 
tural statement that this anthropomorphic God of the 
Hebrews was Isaac's father, yet it is tacitly implied, 
and it cannot be negatived by any evidence rendered in 
the historical language. 

In this wise, the Lord's prophesy was fulfilled in the 
birth of Isaac, and hence, the foundation for a great 
nation, and the first scheme of redemption were laid in 
Sarah's compliance to the will of the Lord, and was 
not due to anything that made Abraham responsible. 

It is also necessary to carefully notice that the very 
first, and the one upon which all the other prophesies 
hinge, pertaining to a coming Saviour, originated in 
this concerning the birth of Isaac. 

What do the circumstances given in this case show? 
The given circumstances shown in this particular in- 
stance were of such a nature that any one might have 
made a reasonably successful guess at its results. 

The nature of the prophesies which relate to the 
same person, and which were said to have been deliv- 
ered by eight different prophets, who lived centuries 
from each other, are now manifestly easy of interpreta- 
tion. 

All the supposed prophesies naturally following in 
chronological order from the first one just given, were, 
at stated times, the ideas of human invention purposely, 
or necesarily, instituted to satisfy the growing demands 
required by the principles of the Church. 

The Church being based on false principles in its be- 
ginning, would require other props for support. But 
again we notice, that these supposed prophesies were 
under the control of men. Had a prophesy been made 
by the Creator, it would have been definitely arranged, 

135 



Cf)e OBtioIution of 'Beliefs 

and could not have been foreseen and controlled by 
mankind. 

In all these contingencies the circumstances were 
caused to follow the purposes determined by human 
acts, which makes the scheme in this supposed mystery 
easily interpreted when its elements constituting the 
evidence are properly analyzed. 

In the historical account, wherein the land of Ca- 
naan was promised to Abraham, the Lord said : "Unto 
thy seed will I give this land." And when Abraham 
had journeyed through the country to a place called 
**Sichem," in the plains of "Meoshe," he found that 
the Canaanite was in the land, ''so that he moved 
thence to a mountain on the east of Bethel." 

On the account that there was a grievous famine 
in the land, he went to sojourn in Egypt. Why did 
God not disperse the Canaanite and avert the drought ? 

Infinite power and. wisdom would have preferred to 
do this rather than unjustly plague the house of 
Pharaoh because of Sarai, Abraham's wife. 

Sarai being very fair to look upon, the Lord, it 
seems, took more than an ordinary interest in her be- 
half. The Lord, in his interest shown to Sarai, may 
have also shown more than a little jealousy of Pharoah, 
who "entreated Abraham well for Sarai's sake." 

Remembering all the circumstances connected with 
this history, and that Sarai was very fair to look upon, 
naturally points to the possibility that she, too, was 
one of those daughters of men whom all the gods ad- 
mired. 

In a hurry to consider some of the circumstances 
connected with the birth of Christ it will be merely 
necessary to re-assert that Abraham was only Isaac's 
stepfather, his legitimate father, as is impHed by the 
evidence in this history, being the same as he who is 
identified in the person of the Hebrew God. 

136 



^U €t30lt!tion of Igellefg 

The circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ were 
on this wise : When, as his mother Mary was espoused 
before they came together, she was found with child 
of the "Holy Ghost," what reasons had the people to 
accept this view as a valid statement of its cause ? 

In connection to her conception, the history does not 
furnish the least evidence that the Virgin Mary ever 
made any such statement, either directly nor indirectly. 
Neither is there any evidence pointing to the fact that 
such was ever witnessed, or that it was ever told and 
recorded by the "Holy Ghost." 

Then in what way were the facts relative to her con- 
ception determined? The facts relative to one of the 
greatest events ever recorded in the history of the 
world are here determined without difficulty. The 
whole circumstances of her conception were such that 
they finally leaked out. 

Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, dreamed that 
such were the circumstances of her conception, and 
then spread the news by relating his dream. What a 
great pity that Joseph ever told his dream. This he 
should have kept a secret. 

That Joseph had this dream we do not doubt, as 
among the Jews in Talmudic times, as among the sav- 
ages at the present, they would even involuntarily ab- 
stain from food to induce dreams, which was a deliber- 
ately adopted method of obtaining interviews with the 
spirits. 

But would the people at the present time be so credu- 
lous as to accept in this wise the doctrine of an incar- 
nated Holy Spirit, based simply on the evidence mani- 
fested to some one in their dream ? 

However credulous the people may be, yet, in this 
enlightened age, such would be foolishness to even 
imagine. 

Hence, with enlightened reason now, the people are 

I3Z 



Ci)e evolution of Igeliefg 

all ready to say no to this interrogation ; but the facts 
are manifest, that the whole multitude of the Christian 
Church, tacitly, by their practices and customs, with- 
out question, accept the doctrine. 

The Jews, who were guided in their expectations, 
looked for a coming Messiah, but they now reject 
Jesus Christ for their Saviour on the ground that there 
is no evidence to prove this claim. 

The substantial evidence in point of its validity, 
shows merely that he was a man no different in his 
physique from men in general, and that he was born 
in the same identical manner that all other human be- 
ings have been, and died in the same manner natural 
to all men, hence he must have been the son of a Crea- 
tor common to the whole human family, whose mem- 
bers have all had a similar origin, mode of creation, 
birth, life and death. All the evidence the Church pos- 
sesses favoring the immaculate conception is based on 
the acceptance of only supposed facts. These, Joseph 
stated, were revealed to him in a dream. May we ask 
if you believe that dreams give conceptions of real 
facts ? 

Do you believe that any Court of Equity would be 
justified in rendering a decision from evidence based 
simply upon testimony given in the statement of some 
one's dream? 

What would you do in case a belief in Joseph's 
dream were against your financial interest? Or, do 
you believe that this is a true account given through 
revelation to us by means of an inspired dream? But 
if this were even true, how do you know it to be so ? 

The evidence not being ample, nor of a quality to 
support the claim, it must fall to pieces. The evidence 
showing, by implication, that the Hebrew God was the 
father of Isaac, we therefore reckon the Hebrew gene- 

138 



Ci)e (gaolutfon of 15tUt($ 

alogy from him instead of from Abraham, which was 
forty-two generations to the birth of Christ. 

God having been their ruler, and a holy man, as all 
rulers were considered, after his death, the Hebrews, 
through their prevailing belief, figured him in their 
dreams not only to the ghost, but to the Holy Ghost. 
In this way it became possible for them to figure him 
to the Father and the God of heaven, and in this wise 
reach a conceived kind of cause capable of any indefi- 
nite expansion, and hence admitting of all adjustments, 
could serve for explanations of everything conceivable. 

Therefore, as we have seen, the genesis of Christ 
being descended from a mortal god, by family lineage, 
and next in fulfilment to the requirements of Joseph's 
dream, from God's Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, explains 
the mystery of the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost, as it was understood by the Jews. 

The evidence conclusively showing that the god of 
the Hebrews having been an earthly and mortal being, 
makes the Bible mystery easy of interpretation, and in 
addition reflects much light on the history of the 
world that has been veiled under a cloud of ignorance 
and superstition for many generations. 

The circumstances controlling the place of Christ's 
birth, were supposed to have been designated in 
prophesy. 

''But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little 
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose 
goings forth have been told of old from everlasting." 

When Herod, the king, demanded of the chief 
priests, and the scribes, where Christ should be born, 
they readily replied : 'Tn Bethlehem," and referred as 
proof of their opinion the passage quoted from Micah 
v:2. 

The fulfilment of this prophesy, the theologians 

139 



Cf)e (gtiolution of ^eliefg 

think, is very remarkable ; but viewed in its true light, 
is not more inspired than any other scheme of human 
invention possible to be administered by the executive 
head of a nation. 

Had he been born in the place where his mother 
lived, Nazareth would have been the honored place. 
But that the prediction, which they believed was di- 
vine, may be fulfilled, ''the world was set in motion, 
a decree goes out from the Roman emperor that all the 
world shall be taxed." This order rendered it neces- 
sary for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. While 
they were there she gave birth to her child. This was 
a force of the circumstances purposely brought about 
by the king to fulfil the requirements of a supposed 
prophesy. 

But how certain were the words of a mortal He- 
brew god! 

The fact that God departed the affairs of this life 
by natural death, soon after the death of Joshua, simi- 
larly to the latter and all other earthly mortal beings, 
we will more particularly notice again. 

But now that the prophets are dead, and that Christ 
has arisen to his fathers, the priests and theologians 
claim that the day for miracle has past, that in the 
future they are no more to be expected. 

It has been with prophesy as with miracle. They 
were conceptions of expectations merely ideal. They 
were proposed by the mind, but never came to be real- 
ized occurrences. 

Had they become real occurrences, they could not 
have answered the requirements stipulated in their de- 
mands, without the hand of providence, at frequent in- 
tervals, changing the whole course of Nature. 

There being no evidence to support the theory of 
such occurrences, they must be rejected from our con- 
ceptions of realities. 

140 



Cf)e (Ctoolution of lBeIief0 

Thomas Paine has truthfully said that "it could not 
be known from those to whom a prophesy was told, 
whether a man prophesied or lied. Everything unin- 
telligible was prophetical. Even insignificant blunders 
would have served the purpose of typical types of 
prophesy, whether it had been revealed to him, 
dreamed or conceited, if the thing be prophesied, or 
intended to prophesy, should happen, or something 
similar to it, among the daily multitude of things hap- 
pening, no one could again know whether he fore- 
knew it, guessed at it, or whether it was accidental." 

Therefore, the prophet is a useless and unnecessary 
character. To be on the safe side and away from his 
deceiving demands, in guarding oneself against imposi- 
tion, it is better to show good wisdom, and not give 
credit to such relations. 

Upon the whole, prophesy, mystery, and miracle, are 
unnecessary characteristic appendages belonging to a 
''religion based on spurious principles," which are in- 
corporated in them to enforce their adoption. 

''The success in this wise of one impostor gave en- 
couragement to another, and the quieting salvo of do- 
ing some good, by keeping up a pious fraud, protected 
the person from remorse." 

In addition to showing by the implied evidence that 
God possessed all the attributes in common with other 
mortal beings, there is some evidence to show that God 
was not his true or real name. This name he gave to 
himself, which was applied in the same sense that any 
Christian name is used to designate some particular 
individual. 

Of this fact, we have direct evidence furnished in 
Ex. iii: 15-16 verses, where God names himself, "And 
God said, this is my name forever, and this is my 
memorial unto all generations." 

In further showing the mortal nature of God, the 
141 



^bt (Biyolmion of IBtlidg 

Bible history also alleges that in a personal conversa- 
tion, which was no different from a conversation made 
by any individual, *'God conversed with Moses face to 
face, as one man converses with another." 

"Go and gather the elders together, and say unto 
Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abra- 
ham, of Isaac, and Jacob, appeared unto me, saying," 
etc. He here uses God as his sire name, while Lord is 
a title name, used originally by Moses and Abraham 
characteristic of his honor, the two gave him the 
double name, ''Lord God," as he himself used it.. 

Appearing to Moses in the same manner that one 
man makes his presence conspicuous to another, he 
further states, in the following oral language, that ''I 
appeared unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto 
Jacob, but by the name of God Almighty, He who 
becomes, was I not known to them ?" Ex. vi : 2-3. 

During his natural life the God of the Hebrews was 
a great warrior, the ruler and executive head and leader 
of the Israelitic nation; but it should be definitely re- 
membered that he was not the Creator of All Things. 

He was a god unto Moses, but not his Creator. On 
account of Moses' non-belief in him, we remember 
that he was not permitted to enter the land of Canaan. 
This circumstance alone is ample proof that Moses 
believed that he possessed only anthropomorphic per- 
sonalities and human attributes. It could not have 
been otherwise, as we very definitely understand that 
they were personally and well acquainted, having been 
co-temporaries for many years. 

God was also a co-temporary with Abraham, as he 
was with Moses, whose father, on account of his ruling 
dignity and superior intellectual powers, gave to him 
the name of Lord as a distinguishing title of honor, 
which he considered becoming to his majesty. To the 
descendants of the fathers he was known as the god of 

142 



C!)e CtJOlution of IBeliefg 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being as before noticed, a 
god to Moses. 

While some of Israel believed that the superior at- 
tributes assigned to him were supernatural and divine 
qualities, there were those of them who did not mani- 
fest such a belief, as they worshiped Baal and other 
gods. 

The fact that Moses was not permitted to enter the 
land of Canaan on account of his refusal to sanctify the 
Lord, is all the evidence necessary to show that Moses 
did not believe in his heavenly origin. 

Now it is easily conceived that the history of him, 
as found in Genesis, relative to the creation, is merely 
a mythical account. It is not a true statement of facts. 
The Bible shows that God was a mortal being, and a 
mortal being could not create the universe. As to the 
authority of the original Hebrew Bible, there is some 
implied evidence showing that God is the author, or 
that he had its writing under his supervision. 

If he was not the writer of the early Hebrew his- 
tory, who were the writers? That he possessed their 
history in book form, is definitely shown by direct evi- 
dence rendered in the following statement made to 
Moses : ''Come up into the mount and I will give thee 
tables of stone, a law and commandments which I have 
written, that thou mayest teach them." Ex. xxiv: 12. 

And that he was the author is shown by the evidence 
rendered in his further statement made to Moses. After 
the people had made them gods of gold, Moses re- 
turned unto the Lord, stating the facts, and asked him 
to forgive them this sin, and if not, "I pray thee blot 
me out of thy book which thou hast written." Ex. 
XX : 32. Does this not show the true author of the 
Bible ? And "Joshua also wrote in the book of the law 
of God." Joshua xxiv 126. 

This evidence not only showing the author of the 

143 



Cf)e OEtioIution of Igeliefg 

original parts of the Bible, but that the people made 
them gods of gold, furnishes good negative evidence 
that they had no faith in a divine nature as claimed to 
be invested in the Lord God. 

The evidence not only shows this, but it further 
shows that the only necessary thing for Moses to do 
to return to the Lord was to ascend to the summit 
of Mount Sinai. 

Why did God prefer to make his home on this 
mountain instead of in heaven? 

During the many years that he resided on Mount 
Sinai, who did he leave in charge of heaven, and other 
parts of Creation ? 

After Moses was called up into the mountain he 
"came again and told the people all the words of the 
Lord," which he wrote, and "took the book of the cov- 
enant and read in the audience of the people." Ex. 
xxiv : 3, 4 and 7. Here is evidence by implication that 
probably Moses wrote the book of the covenant, which 
is now known as the law of Moses. 

The marginal dates to the Bible show that this was 
written about forty years before his death. 

And there is the further evidence to prove that the 
divers and numerous conversations which took place 
between God and many of his subjects for a series of 
many years, on all matters pertaining to their interests, 
were executed in the ordinary manner of oral lan- 
guage. 

To do this requires physical organs of speech, and 
is indicative of a mortal constitution possessed by the 
participants. Hence, here, is the further evidence to 
show that the constitution of God was that of a mortal 
nature. Therefore, having a mortal nature, he must 
have been a human being. 

We have now found that the God of the Jews did 
not inspire or breathe his words into any one, but im^ 

144 



C&e cEtooIution of T5tlitt$ 

parted his ideas to the people by oral or spoken lan- 
guage and by written language. 

We remember that God gave Moses two tables of 
stone written by his finger, which is evidence that he 
imparted his ideas by means of written as well as by 
spoken langutge. But, certainly, there cannot be any- 
thing in these circumstances of writing and speaking, 
that should be thought supernatural, as every one who 
has ever written or spoken a language has done so by 
similar physical means. As we have seen that he 
spoke to "Moses as a man speaketh to his friend," in 
the same identical way that one man speaks face to 
face with another. Ex. xxxiii : 2. There is much evi- 
dence showing the facts, but did we possess no other 
evidence than this alone, it would be sufficiently ample 
in amount and character to prove that the Lord God of 
the Jews was only a mortal mat?. 

The earth is now cursed by a flood. Babel is being 
built, in which event there takes place a confusion of 
tongues. 

History informs us that Babylonia in ancient times 
was the name given to the flat country about the lower 
course of the Euphrates, called in modern times Irak- 
Arabi. 

In the Old Testament this country is caled Shinar, 
Babel, and also the land of the Chaldees, and by the 
later Roman and Greek writers occasionally Chaldea. 
During the wider extension of the Babylonian do- 
minion, the name comprehends also Assyria and Mesa- 
potamia. 

The country forms a perfect plain, which is a con- 
tinuation of that of Assyria. 

The two rivers, Euphrates and Tigris, approach each 
other most nearly, until their blended waters empty 
into the Persian Gulf. 

Bible history informs us that about the year of the 

145 ....-i^--^-— ^... _...-^. 



Cfje (Kijolution of 15tlitt$ 

world 2349 B.C. the above region of country was sub- 
jected to a general inundation, which destroyed man. 
and every living thing from the face of the whole 
earth, excepting the creatures "Noah saved alive in 
his Ark." 

The fact that numerous canals, embankments and 
several lakes once protected this country, and which 
are now mostly in ruin, points to the time when it was 
naturally subject to floods, which were not due to the 
Hebrew God's influence. 

The most important canal was that now "known as 
Nahr-el-Melik, which is undoubtedly the ancient royal 
canal that joined the two great rivers." 

It was kept in repair by the Roman emperors, and 
was serviceable as late as the 7th century. 

The garden-like manner in which the naturally 
fertile soil was cultivated, caused it to yield an abun- 
dance of crops, consisting, especially of wheat, barley, 
and dates. 

The principal and only building material was clay, 
from which "brick" were made by either "drying them 
in the sun or by burning them." 

In abundance everywhere springing up, mineral 
bitumen served as mortar. 

In this favorable plain, the human race, early at- 
tained to a state of social and political organization, the 
oldest indeed of which antiquity gives any account. 

The only sources of the early history of Babylonia 
were a few incidental notices in the Bible, some frag- 
ments derived third hand from the perished writings 
of Berosus, a Babylonian priest, who had translated 
the annals of his country into Greek, and lastly, the 
notices of Greek writers, chiefly Herodotus. But the 
whole is confused. In these history and mythology be- 
ing jumbled together. 

But in the ruins of the once great cities which 
146 



Cfte (Ctjolution of 'Beliefs 

studded the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, the 
Hght is now breaking in on the darkness of the past. 

In recent years, multitudes of brick tablets stamped 
with cuneiform characters, have been dug up from the 
ruins of these cities, furnishing us with a co-tempora- 
neous records of events reaching back thirty centuries 
before the Christian era. 

"The earliest period to which this restored page of 
apparently lost human history carries the records to the 
past, the population of the whole valley of the Tigris 
and Euphrates consisted mainly of tribes of Turanian 
origin, their language having remarkable affinities with 
those of the Ural-Altaic group of the Turanian na- 
tions, or those of the Finns, Magyars and Turks." 

Closely allied tribes occupied the whole region 
southwest of the Caspian Sea, Media, Armenia, Elam, 
and Susiana. 

In this same region lies Mount Ararat, the "Moun- 
tain of the World," and to that region the traditions 
of those Turanians pointed as the cradle of their race. 

The dominant people in Babylonia in the earliest 
times were the Accad or Accadians. They had come 
originally from the mountains of Elam, to the east of 
the Tigris, and hence their name Accad or Accadian, 
"which means highlanders." 

They brought with them the art of cuneiform writ- 
ing, as well as other arts and sciences, especially 
astronomy. 

In this Turanian language the cuneiform inscriptions 
of Babylonia are written for many centuries. 

Every day is bringing new evidence to the influence 
these Accadians have had upon the civilization of the 
Semitic nations, and through them upon that of 
Europe. 

It is well known that Greece derived her system of 

147, 



C&e dBtiolution of IBeliefs 

weights and measures from the Babylonian standards ; 
but these have proven to be of Accadian origin. 

The Greek miua or mua, the fundamental unit of 
the monetary system, is the mauch of Carchemish, and 
fiiauch is found to be not a Semitic but the Accadian 
word, magos, a magician, is derived from an Accadian. 

The Sexagesimel division of the circle, the signs of 
the Zodiac, a week of seven days, named as we now 
name them, and the seventh day of rest, are all Ac- 
cadian. 

Every large city had its public library. In the royal 
library of a Babylonian monarch, Sargon, states, that 
about 2,000 years before Christ, every tablet was num- 
bered, so that the reader had only to write the number 
of the tablet desired and it was handed to him by the 
librarian. 

Strikingly similar to the Hebrew Psalms among the 
multifarious subjects of this extensive literature, there 
are the hymns to the gods, and in a long, mythological 
poem there is an episode identical with that of Genesis, 
only more detailed. 

One of the most curious statements, made in these 
hymns, is that the race of men created by the deity was 
black-headed. 

The same race of men is mentioned elsewhere in the 
ancient literature of the Accadians. In the bilingual 
tablets the black race is rendered in Assyrian by the 
word Adamatu, or red-skins. A popular etymology 
connected this word Adamatu with the word Adamu, 
Admu, man, partly on account of the similarity of 
sound, partly because in the age of Accadian su- 
premacy, and literature, the men par excellence, the 
special human beings, made by the Creator, were the 
black-skinned race, or Accad. The Accadian man, or 
Adam, was dark. It was only when the culture of the 
Accadians had been handed down to their Semitic suc- 

148 



C6e OBtioIution of 15elief« 

cessors that he became fair. The discovery that the 
BibHcal Adam is identical with the Assyrian Adamu, 
or man, and that the Assyrian Adam goes back to the 
first created man of Accadian tradition, who belonged 
to the black Accadian race, is due to Sir Henry Raw- 
linson. 

He has also suggested that the contrast between the 
black and the white races, between the Accadian and 
the Semite, is indicated in the sixth chapter of Genesis, 
where a contrast is drawn between the daughters of 
men and the sons of God, or Adam. 

Here is a suggestion that the forbidden fruit was 
the inspiriting and illuminating product of a plant 
which the conquering race forbade the subject race to 
consume. 

The religion of the Accadians was, originally, a Sha- 
manism similar to what still prevails among the Tu- 
ranians of Siberia, but it developed gradually into a 
huge system of polytheism, which was adopted and 
modified later, by the influx of Semitic inhabitants. 

The Accadians were great in magic, and the Greek 
word magos, a magician, is derived from an Accadian 
word equivalent to "reverend." 

The infiltration of this foreign Semitic element, men- 
tioned above, in the population of the Euphrates Val- 
ley, coming apparently from the southwest, or from 
Arabia and Egypt, early records show, went on in- 
creasing for centuries until it got the upper hand, re- 
sulting in a confounding of the original Babylonian or 
Accadian language. When the Babylonians, or As- 
syrians, became known to the historians of the West, 
they were essentially a Semitic people. Their civiliza- 
tion was merely a development they borrowed from the 
original Accad inhabitants. Their seat of power, the 
city of Babylon, was not the first seat of power. The 

149 



CSe (Etiolution of Igeliefg 

earliest records yet discovered points to a monarch 
whose capital was Ur, now called Mugheir. 

Here, art was already far advanced, the resources of 
the monarch are seen in the temple of the sun god, built 
by him. It has been estimated that no less than 30,- 
ooo,ocx) bricks must have been used in this construc- 
tion. 

Centuries apparently, after this, a fresh invasion 
from Elam is recorded, to which the exact date can be 
assigned at 2280 b. c. 

Another Elamite conqueror, named Cudur-mabug, 
extends his sovereignty over Palestine, and it has been 
inferred that a sovereign of this dynasty is Chedor- 
laomer of Genesis, the name in Accad would be Ku- 
durlagameri, worshiper of the god Lagamaru. Some 
time after this the seat of power was finally fixed at 
Babylon, and the Semitic tongue now began to super- 
sede the Accadian. 

To confirm some of the statements that have been 
made in the above narrative, reference may be made 
to the history given in the eleventh chapter of Genesis 
in regard to Terah and his family, in connection with 
which we find the following statement: 

''And the whole earth was of one speech, and of one 
language," the Bible date gives this at a time 2247 
years before Christ, and also at which date 'Terah 
took Abraham, his son, and Lot the son of Haran his 
son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abra- 
ham's wife, and they went forth from Ur of the Chal- 
dees to go into the land of Canaan, and they came 
unto Haran and dwelt there." Gen. xi:3i. 

On reaching Haran, in the plain, or land of Shinar, 
which is the same as Babel, "They said one to another, 
go to, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly. 
And they had brick for stone and slime for mortar." 
Gen. xi : 3. And they said "go to, let us build us a 

150 



Cfie ©tJOlutiDU of 15elief0 

city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven/' 
This date is also stated as the year 2247 b. c. ''And 
let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad 
upon the face of the whole earth." 

"And the Lord came down to see the city, and be- 
hold, the people all had one language. Go to, let us 
confound their language." "So the Lord scattered 
them abroad upon the face of the whole earth, and they 
left off to build the city. Therefore is it called Babel." 

The year 2247 b. c. that Terah and his family made 
their journey from Ur in the east to Haran in the west, 
Shinar or Babel, to the building of the city and the con- 
fusion of tongues, are treated, in the Bible history, as 
events occurring at the same date as given above. 

The evidence implies that Terah, Abraham's father, 
was of Turanian descent, that he was therefore dark- 
skinned or spoke the Accadian language, that on leav- 
ing Ur, Abraham's father contemplated his journey to 
Canaan, which must have taken place a number of 
years previously to the time in which God called Abra- 
ham to Canaan. Which the events of the Bible text 
show, occurred four hundred and seventy years prior 
to the death of Moses, or in the year 192 1 b. c, a date 
exactly four hundred and thirty years prior to the time 
when the children of Israel were delivered from cap- 
tivity. The flood occurred in the year 2384 b. c, or 
in the year of the world 1656. 

The birth of Terah, Abraham's father, occurred in 
2066 B. c, three hundred and eighteen years prior to 
the alleged flood, and one hundred and forty-five years 
prior to the call of Abraham to Canaan, whose age was 
seventy-five at the time of his call. Hence, Terah and 
his family are represented by the marginal dates in the 
text, as having made their journey from Ur, in the 
east, to Haran in the plain of Babel, an hundred and 
eighty-one years prior to his birth ; while the events 

151 



CSe (gaolution of belief g 

of the text show that his age at this time was one hun- 
dred and forty-five. 

We see now that the difference between the real 
time Terah went to Haran with his family, and the 
represented time, is 326 years. The represented time 
being the year 2247 b. c, the true time was the year 
1 92 1 B. c, which was four hundred and sixty- three 
years after the time of the alleged flood. The cunei- 
form inscriptions show that the Euphrates valley was 
settled at least 3,000 years before Christ, or nine hun- 
dred and thirty-four years prior to the time of Terah's 
birth. 

This altogether excludes him and his family as par- 
ticipants in Babylon's early history, and from the 
abrupt confusion of tongues as stated in the text, as 
the evidence shows that the Euphrates valley was set- 
tled 616 years prior to the flood, and 934 years before 
Terah's birth. 

We have already noticed, going on for many years, 
an early infiltration of a Semitic element into the 
Babylonian population. 

The Semitic getting the upper hand, absorbed the 
former, when it became a dead language, and ceased 
to be used by the later Babylonians. 

However, the Lord may have come down; he may 
have come down from some mountain, as the evidence 
in the silence of the history impHes, while it does not 
show from whence he came, it is not reasonable to sup- 
pose that a human being came out of heaven to con- 
fuse the Babylonian language. But even granting that 
this event was marked by a sudden invasion of the 
Semitic forces under a leader called the Lord, it would 
not indicate anything approaching the supernatural. 

Evidence shows, beyond doubt, that the develop- 
ment, death and confusion of a language is the result 
of the social and natural ;conditions to which the peo- 

152 



Cfie (jBtoolutfon of T3tlit($ 

pie, as a nation, may be subjected, during the different 
phases of their variable circumstances. 

Having viewed the subjects of creation, man's fall, 
the cause of the deluge, the decline of Babylon, result- 
ing in the confusion of tongues, and found them to be 
a collection of history, and mythology jumbled to- 
gether, we are now ready to more especially consider 
that portion of the Bible history pertaining to the per- 
sonal affairs in the natural life of the Lord God. 

Our history of him, in this article, will begin with 
the call he made for Abraham to go to Canaan, and is 
concluded in the third chapter of Judges, because of 
his death. 

Our purpose only requires a sufficient exposition of 
his history given in the Bible, to show that he was a 
mortal being, as has been shown already in the evi- 
dence we have noticed. And in respect of his mor- 
tality, he was no different from any other member of 
the human family. 

An examination of the Bible evidence should show 
that our conjecture of his mortality is either substan- 
tially founded or that it is not. The evidence should be 
in its nature, definite in character. It should show that 
he was either a mortal being or that he was not. 

The determination of this fact is the main object of 
our investigation. 

Once shoAving this view to be based on valid proof, 
the Scriptures at once lose their divine support, hence 
showing one of human construction. 

The evidence examined thus far points to a deity 
who was endowed with the qualities characteristic of a 
corporeal and material organism, hence he must have 
been a mortal human being. Our history of him, as we 
have seen, begins with the call of Abraham. Previ- 
ously to this time his history, as given in the account 
of creation, are both taken together, mythical state- 

153 



Cfte evolution of TBtlitt^ 

tnents, as we have already seen from an examination of 
the evidence. 

The time included in the history of his career dates 
from the year 1921 b. c. to 1406 b. c. It comprises a 
series of 515 years. 

This great period of time shown by the marginal 
dates is not indicated in that time evolved by the 
events given in the body or text of the history. 

It will be determined as we proceed. This discrep- 
ancy is first plainly shown in the marginal date 4004 
years b. c. as being the time of the creation, while the 
different historical events mentioned in the text of the 
Bible history would fix the time at 4040 b. c. The 
marginal dates fix the year of the flood at 1655 b. c. 
instead of the true date 1656 b. c. While we find a 
statement in the body of the text that *'it came to pass 
in the six-hundredth and first year, in the first month, 
and the first day of the month." — Gen. viii : 13. This 
discrepancy between these two Bible statements 
amounts to one thousand seven hundred and forty-five 
years. 

If these record mistakes were made by the Lord, the 
inspired writers of them are not accountable. 

We have seen that Abraham, at the time of his 
call, was seventy-five years of age. 

Now the Lord is a co-temporary of Abraham's for 
one hundred years, or until the latter's death. 

The difference between this period of one hundred 
years and three hundred and ninety, as given in the 
marginal dates for the same period, includes the gen- 
erations of Terah, Abraham's father, and the gener- 
ations of Ishmael and Isaac. 

This difference having been a greater length of 
time than that indicated by the events, shows an age 
for the Lord God two hundred and ninety years less 
than the marginal dates give. 

154 



Cfte OBtialution of TSelief^ 

It is alleged by theologians that at this time, "God 
calleth Abraham and blesseth him with a promise of 
Christ." This is not a valid statement. It is not a 
representative statement of the things as they are em- 
bodied in the text of this chapter, Gen. xii. 

In their alliance, the Lord agrees, on condition, 
that if Abraham emigrates to Canaan, in fulfillment 
to his promise, that he, the Lord, will give him this 
territory. 

And in event that Abraham complies with these de- 
mands, the Lord will make him "the head of a great 
nation," and in this wise "bless and make the name 
of Abraham great." 

And this is all that the Lord does promise. In the 
text of this whole chapter there is not the least ref- 
erence made to the coming of Christ, either directly 
or indirectly, as theologians would have you believe. 

Abraham now departs for Canaan, and on "reach- 
ing that country, there was a famine in the land, and 
Abraham went into Egypt." Abraham returns from 
Egypt, and is "Justified in faith" by the Lord God, 
who gives him encouragement. 

Here, as elsewhere, the word faith has the same 
identical meaning. When used between men in the 
sense of a contract that has been made in good faith, 
it means the adherence to duty and fulfilment of 
promises of one man to another. 

One man has faith in another, in proportion to his 
reputation for reliabihty, but not to any reputation 
the man may have as a believer in some religious 
creed. 

God now renews his covenant with Abraham, and 
has him change his name. 

We observe that this contract is made orally, by 
the use of ordinary language, delivered through phys- 
ical organs of speech in the same manner that any 

155 



Cfte evolution of IBeliefg 

man speaks and conveys his thoughts to the sensory 
organs of another person. 

This shows that God had a physical organization. 

Could he possess a physical organization and not 
be a mortal being? 

God, too, had a conversation with Abraham when he 
promised Isaac, and again when he promised him a 
numerous seed, and revealed to him the destruction 
of Sodom and Gomorrah. If the statement is true, 
it is proof not only further pointing to God's physical 
nature, but to his attributes of character as a war- 
rior. 

These characteristic traits of human nature are 
again evidenced by his attack on the Sodomites, whom 
he struck blind by his blows when in the door of 
Lot's house. 

We now observe that 'Tsaac is bom." The Lord 
visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto 
Sarah as he had spoken. "For Sarah conceived and 
bare Abraham a son in his old age at the set time in 
which God had spoken to him." What did God do 
to Sarah to cause her to conceive? We have asked 
this question once before for your answer. 

This prophesy in the birth of Isaac, however easily 
fulfilled, had nothing to do with the coming of Christ ; 
it was made complete in the birth of Isaac. 

But this prophesy cannot be said to contain any- 
thing in nature approaching the supernatural. Un- 
der like conditions most any of us can reasonably 
prophesy similar occurrences. 

Abraham could not have been considered old, for 
he lived seventy-five years after Isaac's birth. "And 
the days that Abraham lived were a hundred, three- 
score and fifteen years." 

At the death of Abraham Isaac's age is seventy- 

156 



five years. At this time Isaac has been married thirty- 
five years, having been married at forty. 

"Rebekah being barren, Isaac entreated the Lord 
for her." The word entreated in this instance must 
mean used or implored. 

We use a thing when we derive from it some enjoy- 
ment or service. We employ a thing when we turn 
that service into a particular channel. If this word 
is substituted in the former construction, it at once 
renders the literal meaning of the former construc- 
tion. 

"Isaac used the Lord for his wife and she con- 
ceived." Rebekah gave birth to twins. 

The Lord says, "Two manner of people were sep- 
arated from her womb." That is, two nations were 
in her womb. 

One of these children, Esau, was red, showing the 
Accadian blood of Isaac, but the evidence implies that 
the other child was a Semite. Was its father the 
Hebrew God? 

The Scriptural account states that "Isaac loved 
Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob." Hence, each parent 
showed greater affection for his or her choice of na- 
tionality. 

It may have been that Rebekah also showed greater 
affection for the Semite father, as she did for the 
child. It was natural for Isaac to show greater love 
for Esau; the evidence implies that he was not Ja- 
cob's father. 

Jacob and Esau were born when Isaac was sixty. 
At Abraham's death they were fifteen years of age. 
One hundred and five years hence Isaac died at the 
age of one hundred and eighty. Now Jacob is one 
hundred and twenty. 

Jacob now, on leaving Padan-aram, arrives in Ca- 
naan. God meets him personally, the same as any 



Cfte OBtiolution o{ OBeliefg 

other man would do, conversing in oral language, 
and changes his name to Israel, of whom they reckoned 
twelve tribes. 

At about this period in the history of Israel, Jo- 
seph's brethren raised a conspiracy against him, whom 
they sold to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. 

These merchant men carried Joseph with them to 
Egypt ; and now at the tender age of seventeen he 
was sold to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's. 

On his master's wife becoming displeased at Joseph, 
he was put into prison, but interpreted a dream for 
his master, Pharaoh, and gained his freedom, thirteen 
years after he had been sold. At this time Jacob's 
age is one hundred and thirty-three, while Joseph's 
age is thirty. 

Now Joseph is made ruler over all Egypt. In the 
history of Israel at this period, in conformity with 
Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream, the his- 
torian gives seven years of plenty for Egypt, and now 
seven years of drought. 

During the years of plenty, Joseph laid up in store 
great quantities of corn. 

When the drought came and had been very grievous 
all over the country Jacob, who is the same as Israel, 
numbering sixty-six souls, went from Canaan into 
Egypt, to sojourn with Joseph, whose family, being 
already there, made in all three-score and ten souls 
of Israel who were in Egypt. 

Jacob went into Egypt at the age of one hundred 
and thirty. He remained there seventeen years, at 
which time he expired, at the stated age of one hun- 
dred and forty-seven (Gen. xlvii), in the year 1689 
B. c. 

Joseph, being one hundred and three years younger 
than Jacob, his father, he is now forty-four years of 
age. Joseph dies sixty-six years hence, at the age of 

158 



Cfte OBtiolutiOtt of 15tUt(^ 

one hundred and ten. The children of Israel, Jacob, 
have now been in Egypt eighty-three years. 

From the death of Joseph in the year 1623 b. c. 
back to the time of Abraham's call, in the year 192 1 
B. c, we reckon two hundred and ninety-eight years. 

The Bible date shows the event of Joseph's death to 
have occurred in the year 2247 b. c, 624 years earlier 
in the history of the world than its actual occur- 
rence. From this date, 1921 b. c, corresponding to 
Abraham's age when he is seventy-five, we reckon to 
the time of Joseph's death as already done. Next we 
take the Bible date, 1706 b. c. (Gen. xi), as the one 
giving the true time when Israel went into Egypt. 
This being seventeen years prior to Jacob's death, 
which occurred in the year 1689 b. c.^ gives the exact 
time he was in Egypt. 

Hence we use these dates as the most accurate data 
from which to compute the times of the different 
events. 

Summarizing the total time, Israel remained in 
Egypt, until their delivery by Moses, can only be 
reckoned a series not greater than two hundred and 
fifteen years, and not four hundred and thirty, as the- 
ologians would have you believe. The latter is ex- 
actly double the real time that they were there. 

In trying to prove this greatly exaggerated period 
to be the true time Israel remained in Egypt, the- 
ologians refer us to Ex. xiii, 40, as rendering the evi- 
dence to substantiate their claim. 

Such a claim of the Scriptural statement is errone- 
ous. This time exactly corresponds to the whole pe- 
riod from Abraham's call to the end of their cap- 
tivity. We say exactly, as this is four hundred and 
thirty years. 

As from the call of Abraham we have reckoned to 
the death of Joseph, two hundred and ninety-eight 

159 



C&e (gfaolution of beliefs 

years. Israel has now been in bondage eighty-three 
years. Subtracting eighty-three from two hundred 
and ninety-eight gives two hundred and fifteen years 
from the call of Abraham to the time of their cap- 
tivity. 

The evidence now shows that Israel were only in 
captivity two hundred and fifteen years; so that the 
actual time the children of Israel were in bondage 
points to a very greatly exaggerated period. No doubt 
this has been done to have it correspond with the time 
assigned for their captivity by Gen. xv, 13, where it 
is alleged that God predicted their future captivity 
and affliction for four hundred years. Close examina- 
tion of all the prophecies, reveals evidence that they 
fall short of the truth. 

Finding the time evolved in the passing events, as 
given in the Scriptural account, to be greatly at vari- 
ance with a true statement, furnishes the inference 
that possibly the stated age of life, in Israel's day, was 
very greatly in excess of what it really was. 

The children of Israel, after remaining in captivity 
two hundred and fifteen years, as claimed, were deliv- 
ered by Moses in 149 1 b. c, Moses being at this time 
eighty years old. 

On the call of Moses, when the Lord had con- 
versed with him in the ordinary manner of men, he 
returned to Egypt. On interceding with Pharaoh for 
Israel, he conducted them to Mount Sinai, where he 
again met God face to face, who gave him a law to 
deliver to the people, and instructed him to build the 
tabernacle, a portable structure which Israel used for 
worship. Remember here that God meets Moses and 
talks with him face to face. 

Before his death, Moses recounts Israel's history, 
delivers his charge to Joshua in reference to the con- 
quest and subjugation of Canaan, a country Moses 

160 



C&e (Otiolution of 'Beliefs 

was permitted to see, but on account of his non-be- 
lief was not allowed to enter. Num. xx, 12. 

Moses was not permitted to take Israel into Canaan, 
because he refused to sanctify the Lord in the sight 
of Israel. 

These facts are sufficient proof of the Lord's an- 
thropomorphic nature, and further show that Moses 
knew he was only a great warrior and terrestrial 
ruler. 

When the Lord had shown him the countries of 
Canaan, Moses died in the land of Moab, and "he," 
the Lord, "buried him." 

The name Moses is an Egyptian word, and means 
"saved from water." The father and mother of Moses 
were both from the house of Levi, the son of Jacob. 
Were his father and mother brother and sister? If 
God was the father of Jacob, as the Scriptural text 
implies, then through this relationship he would be 
the great-grandfather of Moses. 

As his servant, Moses held direct communion with 
God, whose will and executive plans in government he 
administered to the people. 

The Lord directed Moses to perform miracles be- 
fore the Egyptians, but their magicians were able to 
do as much. 

Anything different could not be expected ; each party 
only possessed the natural power given to human be- 
ings in general. 

THE MIDIANITES SPOILED AND BALAAM WAS SLAIN. 

When the Midianites were spoiled and Balaam slain, 
Moses was wroth with the officers for saving the 
women alive. 

When the Jewish army, on this occasion, had re- 
turned from one of their plundering and greatest 
murdering excursions of all antiquity, which is worth 
the time for anyone to read, will be found in the 

l6i 



Cfte O^toolution of IBeliefg 

twenty-first chapter and thirteenth verse of Numbers. 
It is astonishing. Such is shocking to the tender 
sympathies of anyone who holds that the rights of 
others to possess Hfe, Hberty, and property unmolested 
are equally dear as his own. 

"And Moses, Eleazar, the priest, and all the princes 
of the congregation, went forth to meet them with- 
out the camps ; and Moses was wroth with the officers 
of the host, with the captains over thousands, and 
the captains over hundreds, which came from the 
battle ; and Moses said unto them, 'Have ye saved all 
the women alive f '* 

^'Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through 
the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the 
Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague 
among the congregation of the Lord." 

This slight offence gave ample cause for their 
slaughter of thousands. 

*'Now, therefore, kill every male among the little 
ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by 
lying with him; but all the women children that have 
not known a man, by lying with him, keep alive for 
yourselves." 

"And Moses and Eleazar did as the Lord had com- 
manded Moses." 

Following this detestable order, there is an account 
given of the plunder-taking with their manner of di- 
viding it, in which it is to be noticed that the profane- 
ness of priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of 
crimes, verses 37-40. 

"And the Lord's tribute of the sheep was six, three- 
score and fifteen, and the beeves were thirty-six thou- 
sand, of which the Lord's tribute was three-score and 
twelve; the asses were thirty thousand and five hun- 
dred, of which the Lord's tribute was three-score and 
pne. 

l62i 



Cfie <!BiJOIution of 13tlit($ 

"The persons were sixteen thousand, in which the 
Lord's tribute was thirty-two persons." 

Thomas Paine says, 'The matters contained in this 
chapter, in short, as in many other parts of the Bible, 
are too horrid to read or for human decency to hear, 
for it appears by this chapter that the number of 
women children consigned to debauchery by this or- 
der of Moses was thirty-two thousand. 

"Among the detestable villains that in any period of 
the world have disgraced the name of man and the 
liner qualities of his attributes, if this history be true, 
it is impossible to find a greater than Moses." 

The commands of an anthropomorphic god being 
followed, under the "pretenses of divine inspiration," 
here is an order to butcher the boys, massacre the 
mothers, and "debauch the daughters." 

Is it possible to imagine the feeHngs of those poor 
mothers, put in the deplorable situation, in which a 
child is murdered, another destined to violation, and 
herself in the hands of an executioner? 

Imagine your daughter put in the situation of those 
daughters, who were destined, as prey, to the mur- 
derers of a mother and a brother, and what will be 
their feeHngs? 

It is vain in this wise to impose upon nature; she 
will have her course; and the religion that tortures 
all her social ties is a spurious and diabolical relig- 
ion. 

Are these accounts not true? They are not to be 
accepted in a metaphorical signification, but in their 
literal sense. They are not, therefore, explanatory to 
something else different in its nature from that which 
is alleged in the text. While these statements, in their 
nature, are true, they are not to be accepted on the 
ground of a divine revelation emanating from our 
Creator. 

163 



CSe ggbolution of IBeliefg 

We must admit, however, that such atrocities are 
superhuman in nature; yet they spring from a cruel 
spirit so diaboHcal in character as to exclude them 
from anything that can be considered divine. 

While they are inhuman in character, they pro- 
ceeded from a mortal nature, from one alleged to be 
an all-merciful God, the God of the Hebrews. 

Until the people realize the spurious and mortal na- 
ture of the Hebrew God, they do not believe there is 
so much wickedness attached to his history. 

Brought up as I was in habits of coercion to 
accept the Bible teaching and history of superstition 
as a divine revelation without question or disputation, 
it was granted that the Bible is a true revelation from 
our Creator and that it is divine. This is not true. 
Things divine are heavenly in their nature. 

Relative to the facts here, theologians still demand 
that the people remain ignorant. In this wise the 
ideas the people frame of the Almighty's benevolence 
are carried to the book which they have been taught 
to believe was written by his authority. 

But its history is quite different. It is a book com- 
posed of the exaggerated historical events, wicked 
deeds, and atrocious acts of the early Jewish nation. 
It is more atrocious to me than blasphemy, for what 
is more blasphemous than to ascribe the wickedness 
of man to the orders of our Creator? 

The Scriptural history shows that he may have been 
a god to Abraham and Moses, the executive head and 
leader of the Jews, and the paternal parent of Isaac 
and Jacob, but to the world he was a warrior. If this 
is not true, produce the negative proof showing the 
facts. 

This is the same God or Lord theologians claim to 
be the Creator, whose home is eternally in the heavens. 

What would the Lord of heaven need with a tribute 
164 



Cfte (gtiolution of beliefs 

of such vast quantities of live stock, and again with 
such a great number of human beings? 

Did the Lord transport all this booty to heaven, or 
prefer to make use of it while he resided on Mount 
Sinai ? 

Does the above evidence not show the Lord's hu- 
man character as well as his mortal nature? In direct 
proof of these facts, the Song of Moses not only as- 
serts that he was a "man," but "a man of war" (Ex., 
XV, 3-). . 

"The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name." 

This is the God of whom the excellent Christian, 
Dr. Watts, sang. 

"His nostrils breathe out fiery streams, 
He is a consuming fire; 
His jealous eyes his wrath inflames. 
And raise his vengeance higher." 

As God's servant for many years, Moses died in 
the year 145 1 b. c, at the stated age of one hundred 
and twenty. 

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like 
unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." 

Here the Scriptural text represents their acquaint- 
ance as of a personal nature. It could not be other- 
wise; they were associated together for a series of 
many years. 

In reference to the authority of the original Bible, 
it is more than probable that Moses wrote the greater 
part of the history contained in the Pentateuch, ex- 
cept the portion pertaining to his death and burial. 

The circumstances given in the different accounts 
coming in the time of his natural life, substantiate such 
a claim, as does the tenure of the history itself. 

It sets forth not only all the principal incidents 
relative to the life of himself, but gives these in rela- 
tion to those of his subject, whom Moses has definitely 

165 



C6e (IBtioIution of TBtUtts 

shown, was the leader and executive head of the He- 
brews, whom he alleges to have known **face to face," 
and to whom he conversed as one man knows and 
converses with another. 

The Bible account given in the Pentateuch is all 
the proof needed to conclusively show, beyond all 
question, that the God of the Hebrews was a mortal 
human being; a tutelary god, and hence subject to 
natural death, which we will also show occurred to 
him, as it has to all mortals at the conclusion of their 
lives on earth. 

God now appoints Joshua successor to Moses, who 
prepares the people to pass over Jordan, in which 
undertaking, mark you, God promises him personal 
assistance. 

Coming to Jordan, the people pass over. In Canaan 
they renew circumcision and observe the passover at 
Gilgal. The Canaanites are afraid. On command 
given, mark you again, by the Hebrew God, the Israel- 
ites encompassed Jericho for six days, and the city 
was straightly shut up. 

The king and mighty men of the city fall in the 
hands of Joshua. God, in this siege made on the Ca- 
naanites, personally issued the commands to his army. 
In these or in his actions, do you perceive anything 
about them that is supernatural? Do these not come 
.within the ordinary actions of all generals? 

Do they indicate infinite justice, wisdom, mercy, or 
power? In these I see only the inhuman, diabolical 
incentives of war; which were dealt out by a tutelary 
anthropomorphic god. 

These were the necessary means resorted to by this 
leader of the Hebrews to satisfy his reasons for the 
conquest of Canaan. 

When Joshua has now assembled the tribes of Is- 

i66 



Cfte (gbolution of TStlitts 

rael, and renews the covenant between God and them, 
he relates the benefits they have received from him. 

Remember that the covenant is simply a business 
contract between a mortal God and Israel; between 
the leader and his subjects. 

On completion of such business routine, Joshua let 
the people depart unto their inheritance. 

If further proof is needed to show the business re- 
lations of Israel with a mortal God, read the follow- 
ing quotation given in the book of Joshua, xxiv, i : 

"And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to 
Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for 
their heads, and for their judges, and for their offi- 
cers; and they presented themselves before God." 
How before God? In the same way that one man 
presents himself, in his person, to some other individ- 
ual? This presentation of himself God made in pub- 
lic, before all the officers and children of Israel. Does 
this not prove the fact that God was simply a man? 

The relation God bore to the children of Israel does 
not extend further back than to the times of Abra- 
ham. ''Before Ms time they served other gods." 

Hence the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was 
not the alleged Creator of the Accadian Fathers, whom 
we have found were descendants of Adam. 

"And it came to pass, after these things, that 
Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, 
being an hundred and ten years of age." ''He was 
buried in Tinmathsera, on the borders of his in- 
heritance, which is in Mount Ephraim, on the north 
side of the hill Gaash." 

The Lord God, not having been known to the 
Fathers previously to the times of Abraham, shows 
that he was a god of comparatively recent date, and 
excludes a man procreator to hold accountable for 
the origin of the universe. 

167, 



CSe (gtiolutiott of ggelicfg 

A man could not create himself and everything else 
before his own existence. 

Joshua, who is now dead, when, on rendering God 
twenty-six years of active service, it came to pass that 
the children of Israel asked the Lord now, "Who 
shall first go up, against the Canaanites, to fight 
them?" 

God, answering this interrogation in ordinary spo- 
ken language, said, "that Judah shall go up; behold, 
I have delivered the land into his hand." 

In a similar sense in the use of words, God simply 
gave Judah orders to take the land of Canaan by 
force of arms; the whole object being simply con- 
quest. 

Judah, having received his appointment as succes- 
sor to Joshua, said unto his brother Simeon: "Come 
up with me, into my lot, that we may fight against 
the Canaanites." — Judges, i. 

The Lord still continues to make war against his 
neighboring people. The Lord, thus having deliv- 
ered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into the "hands 
of Judah and Simeon, they slew ten thousand" of 
them. 

"And Judah went with Simeon, his brother, and 
they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and 
utterly destroyed it." 

"Also, Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and 
Askleon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the 
coast thereof. And the Lord was with Judah, and 
he drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, but 
could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, 
because they had chariots of iron." Here is once that 
supreme power got defeated. Why? Because his 
supernaturalism was not equal to the resistance of 
iron wagons. Hence we infer that heretofore bis su- 

i68 



C6e ©tiolution of ^Beliefs 

pernatural powers must have been misrepresented. 
The victory he should have gained. 

The text further shows that God was a warrior, 
and as a general-in-chief was with Judah in person, 
to whom he issued commands for the army. 

Not being justified in denying the history revealing 
the fact that God was a warrior, do you believe that 
such measures of war in their nature are divine, or 
that they emanated from our Creator? 

Things in their nature divine have a heavenly ori- 
gin. In this connection it will be advantageous to 
notice that Moses and Joshua were called servants of 
the Lord, each having served in his official term, at 
least, forty and twenty-six years. 

Now, mark you, that after the death of these "and 
also all that generation who were gathered unto their 
fathers, there arose another generation, which knew 
not the Lord. They did evil in his sight. They served 
Baal and Ashtaroth." ''Nevertheless, the Lord raised 
up judges which delivered them out of the hand of 
those that spoiled them." Mark, also, that the judge's 
official office was to judge Israel. 

"And when the Lord raised up judges, then the 
Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of 
the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge." 

When Judah was dead, who had served in the ca- 
pacity of judge for nineteen years, "Israel dwelt among 
other peoples of Canaan, of whom they took their 
daughters to be wives and gave their daughters to 
their sons and served their gods." 

Therefore, the anger of the Lord was hot against 
Israel, and he sold them in the hand of Cushan-rich-a- 
thaim, king of Mesopotamia, whom they served eight 
years." — Judges, 3. 

At this time, "When the children of Israel cried 
unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to the 

169 



C6e (Etiolution of OgeHefe 

children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othneil, 
the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." 

We distinctly note the fact, on this occasion, that 
the Lord did not hear their cries; the Lord had died 
during this period of time the children were in bond- 
age to the king of Mesopotamia. 

During this particular period of eight years in 
bondage, "when the children of Israel cried to the 
Lord," for his assistance, ''the spirit of the Lord came 
upon him, Othneil, and he judged Israel and went to 
war." 

The text shows that some time during this period 
after the Lord sold Israel, he died, as a man's spirit 
cannot come until after the natural death of its body. 

The Lord now having died, he could not judge 
Israel, neither could he hear their cries. 

His spirit coming, clearly shows that the Lord had 
sustained a physical death. The spirit can only come 
after death. 

Hence an individual, subject to death, must neces- 
sarily be a mortal being. The Lord was the subject 
of death, therefore, he was mortal. 

This gives us an explanation of the Bible phrase, 
"spirit of the Lord," which has reference to the spirit 
after natural death. 

On the within evidence we have proven clearly that 
the Lord God was a mortal being; therefore, we rest 
our claim. We rest our claim on evidence obtained 
only from the Scriptures. 

The Lord God in his natural life was a co-tem- 
porary with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, 
Judah, Othneil, and Terah, Abraham's father. 

His age can only be approximately computed, as 
It is not known exactly how old he was at the time of 
Abraham's call. 

But, to obtain his approximate age, we reckon from 
170 



Ct)e (gtiolutton of IBeliefg 

the call of Abraham to the year 1406 b. c, or to the 
time of Judah's death, five hundred and fifteen years. 
Between the above date and 1398 b. c, he died. 
Now, if we suppose that he was not born before the 
birth of Abraham, or not so early as that, we can fix 
his age between the extremes of five hundred and 
forty to five hundred and ninety-eight years. 

The objection may be raised, here, that such a 
lengthy series of years for his age is greatly in ex- 
cess of what it should be to constitute a natural life- 
time. But, remembering that Noah's age was three 
hundred and fifty-two years in excess of this, not to 
mention Methuselah's age, we see that God's age 
falls within the bounds of other ages mentioned by 
the Bible history for about the same age of the world. 

Sometimes God designated himself by the name of 
Jehovah, or God Almighty. _ 

No doubt but that the portion of Biblical history 
pertaining to his natural and official life was written 
by himself and his personal servants: Moses, Joshua, 
and the Judges. The books pertaining to these, with 
the mythical account of creation, compose the original 
Bible. 

These are the authors whose Scriptural accounts 
were infused with the influence of God during his 
natural life. 

Great multitudes of people have supposed these 
Scriptural accounts to be indicative of supernatural 
power, the writers having inspired or breathed in the 
words from their infinite Creator. 

This view is erroneous. Whether the words are 
those of God or not, they were written in his life- 
time. If God did not write these accounts himself, 
he no doubt gave his personal influence to the writers 
or authors; but no part of the Scriptures have ever 
been the result of inspiration. That portion of th • 

171 



Cfte €tioIutiott of 15elief« 

Scriptures written since the death of God is the work 
of the Church. 

Since the death of God in the year 1406 to 1398 
B. c, he has not ruled over Israel. 

"Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges 
ruled, that there was a famine in the land." — Ruth, 
i: I. 

The phrase, *'when the Judges ruled," excludes the 
time from that when God ruled Israel. 

"And when the Lord had raised them up Judges, 
then the Lord was with the Judge, and delivered 
them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of 
the Judge." — Judges, 2. 

But immediately succeeding the death of Judah, the 
Judge is called "deliverer." 

In the official office of both Judge and deliverer, 
Othniel is the first person to act in that capacity. 

"When the children of Israel now cried unto the 
Lord, on their being sold unto the king of Mesapo- 
tamia, he did not hear their cries, the spirit of the 
Lord came upon Othniel, and he judged Israel, and 
went out to war." 

It is to be sharply marked here that, prior to this 
particular time, the Lord was the Judge and leader 
of Israel, but now they suppose that his spirit comes 
upon Othniel. 

Remember, also, that the spirit has neither flesh nor 
bones, and does not have a separate existence until 
after death of its natural body. 

Hence, from the date of God's death, which oc- 
curred at about the time of Othniel's appointment, or 
soon afterward, the Bible speaks of God as being a 
"Spirit." He is also designated by the phrases, 
"Spirit of the Lord," "Spirit of God," the "Holy 
Spirit," and the "Holy Ghost." 

Such expressions as "Spirit of the Lord" and the 
172 



C6e CiJOlution of 'Beliefs 

"Spirit of God," are indicative of possession. They 
denote the same thing as the "Lord's Spirit," or 
"God's Spirit" does. 

These expressions imply that God's spirit once in- 
corporated a natural body, and that the spirit became 
separated from the body through dissolution of the 
latter. 

Now we have seen that after the time in which the 
Judges ruled, God is represented by the Bible as being 
a spirit; previous to this time, he is represented as a 
man who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

He was a god to them, but not to the patriarchs. 
The fathers of Abraham "served other gods." 

Even the immediate fathers, "Terah and Nachor, 
served other gods." — Joshua, 24. 

The reason they served other gods is obvious. They 
were not yet acquainted with the God of the He- 
brews, and were not, until after Terah left Ur and 
came to Haran. 

The marginal date in the text represents this to be 
the same year that Abraham received his call to Ca- 
naan, which we have reckoned to be in the year 
1921 B. c. 

At this point in the Biblical statement made in 
Joshua's exhortation to Israel, we notice an incon- 
sistency. 

He states to them that, "Thus sayeth the Lord God 
of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of 
the flood, and they served other gods." "Even Terah 
and Nachor served other gods." "And I took your 
father, Abraham, from the other side of the flood, and 
led him through all the land of Canaan and multiplied 
his seed and gave him Isaac." — Joshua, 24. 

Some of Joshua's statements are not true state- 
ments. They do not coincide with the facts; as the 
Lord God did not lead Abraham from the other side 



Cfie OBtioIutfon of IBeliefe 

of the flood throughout the land of Canaan, for the- 
simple reason that, at this time, Abraham was not 
born, neither was Terah, his father. 

Terah was not born for three hundred and eighteen 
years after the flood, and Abraham's birth was three 
hundred and eighty-eight years after the flood. 

Even had the Hebrew God at this time existed, 
which is not probable, he could not have known any- 
thing concerning Terah and his family, for they were 
not yet created. 

We have no evidence in favor of their acquaint- 
ance with the Lord God until they have gone from 
Ur, their native country, to Haran in the plain of 
Shimar or Babel. 

At this time, Terah, Abraham's father, is one hun- 
dred and forty-five years old, and Abraham is sev- 
enty-five. 

Now it is certain that the people beyond the time 
of the flood did not know anything concerning the 
Lord God. 

Hence, it is reasonable to infer that they did not 
believe that he was the man who caused the flood, 
nor the God, who created the universe. 

The Scriptures further show, indirectly, that the 
world was created some three thousand and forty- 
four years previous to the Lord God's existence. 

Therefore, he was not the Creator of the universe ; a 
man could not create all things else prior to his own 
existence. 

Carefully drawing your attention to the statement 
Joshua made to Israel in reference to the other side 
of the flood, we observe that it is not a specific state- 
ment in its signification, if made in reference to time. 
For you may, from such reason, allege that his state- 
ment has reference simply to the boundary lines of the 
flood. 



Cfte dBtiolution of Igeliefg 

If this is the version we are to understand by his 
statement, it at once, clearly shows, that the flood was 
limited in its extent by boundary lines, and therefore, 
did not cover the face of the whole earth, as alleged 
in the Bible account of the deluge. 

We believe that when Joshua refers, as he does, to 
the other side of the flood, that he has reference to 
this in time, meaning prior to the flood or previous 
to its occurrence. However, this is not a vital point. 

The other premise gives us a different conclusion; 
but either conclusion shows a fallacy. One in the 
time scale of the world when the flood occurred, the 
other in reference to the extent of the flood. 

On our investigation of the Israelitic conceptions 
relative to their ideas of deity, we have found them 
to be re-illustrated under other conditions of the same 
general truth, that the primitive God is the superior 
man, either indigenous or foreign, who was propiti- 
ated during his life, and still more after his death. 

In the history of the human family there has been, 
from a deification of the higher races, a transition 
to deification of conquering races, not individually, 
but bodily. 

The interpretation of the Scriptural expression, 
"gods and men," occurring also in the traditions of 
various other peoples, is now made manifest. 

Behind the supernatural being of this order, as 
behind supernatural beings of all other orders, we 
thus find that there has, in every case, been a human 
personality. 

The power of this personality, having exceeded 
previously known power, excites awe; the possessor 
of it, being feared during his life, is still more feared 
after his death. 

Hence, as above stated, identification of the su- 
perior with the divine, which has led to the propiti- 

^75 



Clje OBiJOIution of 15elief0 

ation of living chiefs and kings as gods, has led to 
more marked propitiation after their death. 

Evidently, then, the apotheosis of deceased rulers 
among the ancient historic races, is but a continuation 
of a primitive practice. 

In reading that Baal, a Hebrew v^^ord signifying 
lord, owner, or master, was the same as the warrior 
Bel or Belus, who made the deluge, we do not doubt 
that the early Babylonians, too, worshipped chiefs, 
who, being gods while alive, became greater ones 
after death. 

These facts show us in the most general way how 
the conceptions of a deity began to diverge from a 
remarkable personage. And such conceptions are no 
exception to the Semite idea. 

The Hebrews identified the superior with the di- 
vine, which, leading to the propitiation of their ruler 
as a god during his life, led to a more marked propi- 
tiation of him since his death. 

A view of the statement made by Joshua, that "God 
is a spirit," shows the application of a term which, 
otherwise applied, signifies a human soul. 

It is only by the qualifying epithet that the meaning 
of Holy Ghost is distinguished from the meaning of 
ghost in general. 

A divine being is still denoted by words that origi- 
nally meant the breath, which, deserting the man's 
body at death, was supposed to constitute the surviv- 
ing part. 

When the conceptions have greatly developed, there 
are differentiated titles. 

The names ghost, spirit, and demon, which were 
first applied to the other self without distinction, come 
to be differently applied as ascribed differences of 
character arise. 

That this has been the natural course of the genesis 
176 



Cfie OBiioIutfon of 15elief0 

is indicated in the original community of meaning 
shown in the words which have been appHed by the 
more advanced societies to their different orders of 
supernatural beings. 

The shade of an enemy becomes a devil, and a 
friendly shade comes to be a divinity. 

The various evidences warrant the suspicion that 
from the ghost, once uniformly conceived, have arisen 
the variously conceived supernatural beings. 

Besides the unspecialized use of demon, which 
means either an angel or genius, good or bad, we 
find the unspecialized use of deus for god, and ghost. 

Similarly with the Hebrews. In Isaiah, where he 
represents himself as commanded to reject it, he 
quotes a current belief implying such identification. 

"And when they say unto you : Consult the ghost 
seers and the wizards that chirp and mutter ! should 
not people consult their gods, even the dead, on behalf 
of the living?" 

When Saul went to consult the ghost of Samuel, the 
expression of the enchantress is : "I saw gods, elohim, 
ascending out of the earth." Thus ''god and ghost," 
being used as equivalents. 

Elohim, in some cases, translated gods, is applied 
also to kings, judges, powerful persons, and to other 
things great or high. 

There is no exception, then, using the phrase an- 
cestor-worship in its broadest sense as comprehending 
all worship of the dead, be they of the same blood 
or not. We conclude that ancestor-worship is the 
root of every religion. 

And that the existing Semitic idea of deity, which 
has been transmitted to the world through the He- 
brew Bible, is no higher than that which other races 
have shown us. 

Many good men, thinking they were not commit^ 

I7Z 



Cfte OBtJOlutiott of IBeliefs 

ting any crime by being credulous, accepted these 
strange accounts and marvellous history of the Bible 
as a divine revelation, and lived a very pleasant life 
in view of such a belief, without question. Had the 
governing circumstances of their early education been 
different, they would have believed some other nar- 
rative with the same readiness. 

In making sacrifice of himself, multitudes of our 
people have been so enthusiastically enraptured by 
something they conceived to be the infinite love of 
the Creator to man, that their vehemence of the idea 
deterred them from examining into the absurdity and 
profaneness of the story. 

"The more unnaturally anything has been pre- 
sented to the minds of the people, the greater capacity 
it has had for dismal admiration." 

This bold investigation to many may seem strange, 
and give alarm, but to decline an investigation simply 
on their account would be rendering too great a com- 
pliment to credulity. The demands of the times and 
importance of the subject, require this investigation 
for the truth, wherever it may be found. 

It is becoming very greatly believed, throughout 
Christendom, that the Christian Church foundation 
has only a spurious theory for support. 

Any who are wavering under such ideas of uncer- 
tainties will have great consolation in determining 
the truths of this subject, if in our conclusions we 
are able to deal them out a summarized statement of 
valid and undisputable facts, as they are embodied 
in the Scriptural text. 

We have had neither time nor desire to fret over 
disputes. The whole object of our investigation has 
been to obtain sufficient evidence to show whether the 
words of the Bible are those of our Creator or not. 

178 



CI)e OBtJOlution of 15elief0 

An inexorable logic, in our investigation, has forced 
us to the negative conclusion. 

When we read the words in those books ascribed 
to Moses and Joshua, that the Israelites, by stealth, 
came upon whole nations of people, who had ren- 
dered them no harm; that they put all those to the 
sword; that neither age nor infancy was spared; that 
men, women, and children were utterly destroyed by 
them, which are said in the Scriptures to have been 
perpetrated by the express command of God, we are 
certain that the Creator of man never commissioned 
such things to be done. 

But, while we beheve this to be a true statement in 
the words of the Hebrew God, it cannot apply to the 
Creator of the universe. 

To charge the commission of such diabolical acts, 
as the ones above, to the Almighty, which, in their 
own nature and by every rule of moral justice, are 
crimes, as all assassinations of infants, is a very seri- 
ous charge to make on the character of our Creator. 

The Scriptures claim that these assassinations were 
done by the express command of God. 

Were they divine? Did they proceed from the 
Creator? If we put ourselves in the position to ac- 
cept these words of the Bible as being divine, we are 
necessitated to undo all our belief in the moral justice 
of the Creator, as in what manner could smiling in- 
fants cause offence? 

If this were the only evidence to prove, that the 
Bible theory is spurious, the sacrifice we would have 
to make, to believe it divine, alone would determine 
our choice. 

Having thus determined, that the Bible is not a 
divine revelation, what shall be our rule of faith? 

The Almighty's acquaintance can be made by seek- 
ing his laws that determine our actions. 

179 



Cfie Ctiolutfon of IBelietff 

Man in his very nature knows that there is a power 
superior to his own. 

The fact is reahzed that he did not create himself, 
that there is a superior power to account for his exist- 
ence. 

He determines, by observing the nature of other 
things, that none of these are self-created, though 
thousands of other creatures exist. By the analysis 
of the properties of material things in connection with 
an observation of the laws that govern phenomena, he 
derives the positive conclusion that there is a su- 
preme power evolved by a definite law which governs 
all things in nature. 

This is the Creative and Controlling Power of the 
Universe : this is God. 

But have we no word of revelation from the Cre- 
ator? This we answer in the affirmative. Creation 
herself is the very embodimei;it of such a revelation. 

The universe renders us a revelation in all her 
manifestations. 

These we behold everywhere. In these a revela- 
tion is found which no man by his word can counter- 
feit or change. 

In this revelation the Creator has spoken univer- 
sally to man. 

And herein is shown the impress of his infinite 
perfectness. 

When an intelligent mind contemplates the heavens 
and the earth, and the various orbs of the firmament ; 
the land and water; the mountains and the valleys; 
the hills and the plains, that compose our earth; and 
the relations which the various parts of the heavens 
and the earth bear to each other, are carefully ex- 
amined, man cannot doubt that they are the work of 
an Almighty and infinite Creative Being. 

In a similar manner surveying the motions of the 
i8o 



Cfte (gaolution of lgelief0 

heavenly bodies, the rising and setting of the sun, 
moon, and stars, the ebbing and flowing of the tide, 
the successive generations of men, and other animals ; 
the return of the seasons, the regular return of day 
and night, and its correspondence to our nature, the 
food provided for man and beast, and the mode in 
which it is produced, he sees the revelation of his 
Creator and observes that the world is governed by 
his laws. 

Their own light reveals the author of these works. 
The language used by human beings is local and 
changeable, and could not be the means employed to 
impart an unchangeable and universal language of an 
everlasting information. 

The belief that Jesus Christ was sent by the Cre- 
ator to publish the glad tidings to all nations, from 
one end of the earth to the other, is only consistent 
with the ignorance of those who knew nothing of 
the world's extent. Hence, for several centuries in 
contradistinction to the discoveries of philosophers, 
and the experience of navigators, they claimed that 
the earth is flat and that man might walk to its end. 

But why should all nations have been given a reve- 
lation by Jesus Christ? 

The Hebrew language is the only one that he could 
speak, and in the world there are several hundred 
languages. 

And any man, who understands something about 
languages, knows that it is impossible to translate 
from one language to another without frequently mis- 
taking the sense, and indeed losing a great part of 
the original. 

At the time Christ lived the art of printing was 
wholly unknown. 

Every accomplishment demands that the means used 
shall be equal to the requirements of the circum- 

i8i 



C&e ggtiolution of TBtlitfs 

stances. The difference between finite and infinite 
power here reveals itself. 

Owing, often, to a natural inability of the power 
required for the purpose, with an insufficient wisdom 
to apply power efficiently, man frequently fails in the 
accomplishment of his purpose. 

But infinite power and wisdom, is equal to all the 
requirements and never faileth. 

And from this infinite page of unchangeable lan- 
guage, man can read the revelations of his ever pres- 
ent Creator. 

Our purpose has not been to say anything disre- 
spectfully of Christ. He was a man of most amiable 
character. He preached and practised a morality of 
the most benevolent kind, though many years previ- 
ously Confucius and some of the Greek philosophers 
preached a similar system; the Quakers since, and 
many great men in all ages. Yet, it has not been 
exceeded by any. 

The fact that Christ wrote no account of himself, 
his birth, parentage, or anything else, shows that the 
New Testament history has been entirely the produc- 
tion of others. 

As to the account of his resurrection and ascension, 
it consists of the necessary counterpart of the story 
of his birth. He could not have been brought into 
the world by his historians in a supernatural manner 
without their obligations to take him out in the same 
way that he was brought into it. Otherwise the story 
would have no support. 

Within historical evidence there is every probabil- 
ity that the person of Jesus Christ existed, that he 
was crucified, which was the prevalent mode of exe- 
cution in those days. 

He was subjected to the hatred and revenge of the 
whole organized priesthood, not because he preached 

182 



C!)e (gaolution of TStlitts 

most excellent morality and equality for man; but 
because he also preached against the corruption and 
avarice of the Jewish priests. 

On this account, we read, that they brought an accu- 
sation of sedition and conspiracy against him in be- 
half of the Roman government, to which the Jews 
were tributarily subject. 

In this matter it is not improbable that the Roman 
government might have had some secret apprehen- 
sions of the effects of his doctrines, as did the priests. 

And it is not improbable but that Christ had in 
contemplation the delivery of the Jewish ^nation from 
their bondage to the Romans. However, this virtu- 
ous man reformer and revolutionist, between the two, 
lost his life. 

But his dead body in the grave, having been resur- 
rected to a living form, with its ascension afterward 
through the air, is quite different from the evidence 
it will show, when compared to that furnished by the 
invisible conception of a child in the womb of its 
mother. 

If we would suppose the resurrection and ascension 
of his body to have taken place, it would necessarily 
admit of ocular demonstration, similarly to that of a 
balloon, at least, to all Jerusalem. 

But a thing to be generally believed, must neces- 
sarily show the evidence equal to the exigencies of the 
circumstances. In this instance it should have been 
universal. 

The evidence, here, of this last related act, was the 
public visibility, which, being the only evidence that 
could give sanction to the thing alleged in the former 
part, is unsupported by the evidence, for it has never 
been produced. 

Instead of the evidence having been made general 
to a public visibility, there were only a small number 

183 



Cfee (EtiDlution of T3tlit(» 

who say that they saw it; "this number not being 
more than eight or nine," are introduced as proxies 
for the whole world, to say that they saw it, and this 
insufficient evidence requires the whole world to be- 
lieve it. 

Should we try to palliate or disguise this matter 
would be more than useless. 

So far as it relates to the supernatural part, there 
is every evidence of fraud and imposition stamped 
upon its face. 

The best and about the only surviving evidence 
respecting the affair is furnished by the Jews. They 
are the descendants from the mother country and 
stock of the primitive Hebrews, who lived in the days 
of the supposed resurrection and ascension, which is 
said to have taken place, and they assert that it did 
not occur. The Jews, being cited to corroborate the 
truth of the account, is the equivalence of proving the 
truth of anything by those who say it is false. 

The accounts of the Bible in their literal significa- 
tion being a compilation of human history, mythology, 
and religion, which belonged to the small nations of 
primitive Hebrews, and the result of their supersti- 
tion, it cannot be accepted as a divine rule of faith 
given to the human family by the Creator through in- 
spiration, either directly or indirectly. 

The moral code of the Bible furnishes inspiring 
truths worthy to be taught and practised by anyone; 
but its precepts are not better than those contained 
in many heathen religions which are not less sacred 
and inspired than the Christian religion. 

We read that among the 'Tarsees to see evil and 
not warn him who does it, or to fail to give alms to 
the needy, is considered a mortal sin. A pauper 
among them was never known." 

To buy grain when it is cheap and hold it in store 
184 



Cl)e (gtiolution of Ogellefg 

purposely to increase the price, is the greatest sin a 
man can commit, because it leads to all the others. 

Professor Max Muller, who has investigated the 
subject of the heathen reHgion perhaps more than 
anyone else in the world, says, "There is no religion 
which does not say do good and avoid evil." In 
speaking of the simplicity of their prayers in the 
Avesta, he says, as follows: 

**May we attain to union with thy purity for all 
eternity." Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, was 
one of the Bible makers of the heathens. 

He lived and taught six hundred years before 
Christ. When one of his disciples interrogated him 
for one rule, which might serve for all of one's life, he 
replied: "Is not the word reciprocity such a word?" 

"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do 
to others." And, again, Pythagoras said that, "God is 
neither the object of sense nor the subject of passion, 
but is invisible and supremely intelligent." 

"He is the universal spirit that diffuses itself over 
all nature. All beings receive their life from him." 

"There is but one only God, who is not, as some 
are apt to imagine, seated above the world beyond 
the orb of the universe; but being himself all in all, 
he sees all beings that fill his immensity, the only 
principle, the light of heaven, the Father of all. 

"He produces everything. He orders and disposes 
of all things." 

These Grecian ideas are not surpassed by any yet 
reached by the Christians. Such ideas of the Creator 
will compare favorably with the one of whom Moses 
sang. 

To those who may believe the moral system of the 
Bible superior to all the others in the world, because 
divine, and that no system of human invention stands 

185 



C&e Cfaolution of Igeliefg 

the test, we append the system of Buddha, of the 
things to avoid. 

''Kill not, but have regard for life. 

''Steal not, neither do ye rob; but help everyone 
master the fruits of his labor. 

"Abstain from impurity, and lead a life of chas- 
tity. 

"Lie not, but be truthful. Speak truth with discre- 
tion, fearless, and in a loving heart. 

"Invent not evil reports, neither do ye repeat them. 
Carp not, but look for the good sides of your fellow 
beings, so you may with sincerity defend them from 
their enemies. 

"Swear not, but speak the truth, and with dignity. 

"Waste not the time with gossip, but speak to the 
purpose or keep silence. 

"Covet not, nor envy, but rejoice at the fortunes of 
other people. 

"Cleanse your own heart of malice, and cherish no 
hatred, not even against your enemies ; but embrace 
all living beings with kindness. 

"Free your mind of ignorance, and be anxious to 
learn the truth, especially the one thing needed, lest 
you fall a prey to skepticism, or errors. 

"Skepticism will make you indifferent, and errors 
will lead you astray, so that you will not find the noble 
path that leads to life." 

Following these, we will notice a few of the Buddh- 
istic ten commandments. 

When compared to the Christian commandments, 
they are found very similar, indicating that the Chris- 
tian might have been framed and written by a com- 
parison of the Buddhistic. 

"Thou shalt not take life. Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not commit adultery, nor any impurity. 

i86 



C6e (gaolutfoit of ageliefg 

Thou shalt not lie. Thou shalt not intoxicate thyself." 

And we read the following quotation from Profes- 
sor Max Muller by Damapada: 

"If a man live an hundred years and spend the 
whole of his life in religious attention and offering 
to the gods, sacrificing elephants and horses, which 
are the most costly that can be made, all this is not 
equal to one act of pure love in saving Hfe." 

"Not in the void of heaven, not in the depths of the 
sea, not in any of these places, nor by any means, 
can man escape the consequences of his evil deeds." 

"The man who foolishly does me wrong, or regards 
me as doing him wrong, I will return him the pro- 
tection of my ungrudging love. The more evil goes 
from him, the more good shall go from me to him." 

"The fragrance of these good actions always re- 
dounding to me, the harm of the slanderer's words re- 
turning to him." 

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, at any time; 
hatred ceases by love." 

"Let a man overcome evil by good, the greedy by 
liberality, the liar by the truth." 

In the above proverbs the truth of their religious 
principles evidently is not surpassed by any other in 
the world, and these are called heathen by the Chris- 
tians. 

In this connection many others could be added, but 
by saying that all religions are very similar, let these 
be sufficient. 

Evidently not only some good is found in all of 
them, when once investigated, but the heathen relig- 
ions are found to be almost exactly the same as ours. 

Their feasts, fasts, sacraments, and even their 
ethical code, all seem to have the same origin and to 
be in purpose with ours. 

187 



CSe (gtiolutfon ot Ogeliefg 

You may ask how a knowledge of these things 
spread. 

Buddhist missionaries were sent, in the third cen- 
tury before Christ, to every part of the known world. 
And no doubt but that the sentiment of these heathen 
proverbs have been copied into the Christian Bible. 



i88 



Cfie OBiioIution of 'Beliefs 



TABLE OF AGES. 



WAS BORN. 

Adam 4040 b. c. 

Seth 3910 '' 

Enos 3805 " 

Cainan 3715 " 

Mahalalul 3645 " 

Jared 3580 " 

Enoch 3418 " 

Methuselah . . . 3353 " 

Lamech 3166 " 

Noah 2984 " 

The Flood 2384 " 

Shem 2386 " 

Arphaxad 2286 " 

Salah 2251 " 

Eber 2221 '' 

Peleg 2187 " 

Reu 2157 " 

Serug 2125 " 

'Nahor . . .,. .,. ., 2095 " 

Terah , 2066 " 

Abraham 1996 " 

Abraham's call 1921 " 

Isaac . ., 1896 " 

Esau .. .( 1836 " 

Jacob ,. 1836 " 

Joseph 1733 " 

Joshua 1436 " 

Judah 

Moses 1571 " 

189 





DIED, 




YEAR 


YEAR 




OF THE 


OF THE 




WORLD. 


WORLD. 


AGE. 


I 


931 


930 


130 


1042 


912 


235 


1 140 


905 


325 


1235 


910 


395 


1290 


895 


460 


1422 


962 


622 


987 


365 


687 


1656 


969 


874 


165I 


777 


1056 


2006 


950 


1656 






1654 


2254 


600 


1754 


2192 


438 


1789 


2222 


433 


1819 


2283 


464 


1853 


2092 


239 


1883 


2122 


239 


2915 


3145 


230 


1945 


2093 


148 


1974 


2179 


205 


2044 


2219 


175 


2144 


2324 


180 


2204 






2204 


2351 


147 


2307 


2417 


no 


2604 


2714 
2634 


no 


2469 


2589 


120 



C6e (gtiolution of Igelfefe 

If we place the birth of the Hebrew God as early 
as that of Abraham, or not so early by fifty years, 
and his death, as shown by the Bible text, between 
the dates 1406 and 1398 b. c, will give him the 
approximate age of 540 to 598 years. 

The Children of Israel were taken in captivity 1706 
years b. c. They were delivered from bondage in the 
year 1491 b. c. They were in bondage 215 years. 



THE END. 



RD 84 

190 



BROADWAY PUBLISHING CO'S 
NEWEST BOOKS 

All Bound in Silk Cloth and Gilt. Many Illustrated 
Fiction 

The Eyes at the Window (beautifully bound, with 

embossed jacket) — Olivia Smith Cornelius $i .50 

Next-Night Stories — C. J. Messer 1 .25 

Arthur St. Clair of Old Fort Recovery— S. A. D. 

Whipple 1 . 50 

Bamegat Yarns — F. A. Lucas i . 00 

Jean Carroll, with six illustrations — John H. Case i . 50 

As a Soldier Would — Abner Pickering i . 50 

The Nut-Cracker, and Other Human Ape Fables — 

C. E. Blanchard, M.D i .00 

Moon-Madness, and Other Fantasies — Aim^e 

Crocker Gouraud (5th ed.) i .00 

Sadie, or Happy at Last — May Shepherd i . 50 

Tweed, a Story of the Old South— S. M. Swales. . i .50 
The White Rose of the Miami— Mrs. E. W. 

Ammerman i . 50 

The Centaurians— Biagi i . 50 

The Reconstruction of Elinore Wood — Florenz S. 

Merrow i . 50 

A Nest of Vipers — Morgan D. Jones i .50 

Religious Works 

The Disintegrating Church — ^Frederick William 

Atkinson i . 00 

Evolution of Belief — J. W. Gordon i . 50 

Down Hill and Up Hill — Rev. J. G. Anderson . . 2 . 00 

A Certain Samaritan — Rev. John Richelsen i . 00 

The Reunion of Christendom — Francis Goodman i . 50 
What the Church Is and What It Should Be— 

Lafayette Swindle 1 . 50 

A Harp of the Heart. (Poems) — Rev. Chas. 

Coke Woods 1 .00 

The Gospel Parables in Verse — Rev. Christopher 

Smith 75 

Who? Whence? Where? An Essay by Pedro 

Batista 1 . 00 

Compendium of Scriptural Truths — Marshall 

Smith 1 . 25 

The Passion Play at Ober Ammergau — Esse Esto 

Maplestone 1 . 00 

Israel Lo Ammi — Ida M. Nungasser i . 00 



The Eternal Evangel — Solomon S. Hilscher $i .50 

A New Philosophy of Life — J. C. Coggins i . 00 

Romance of the Universe — B. T. Stauber i .50 

In the Early Days — Adelaide Hickox i . 50 

The New Theology — By a Methodist Lajrman — 
Hamilton White 1 .00 

Miscellaneous 

Anvil Sparks — Radical Rhymes and Caustic 

Comments, by Wilby Heard 75 

The Medical Expert and Other Papers — Louis J. 

Rosenberg 50 

The Little Sufferers (deaUng with the Abuses of 

the Children's Societies) — G. Martin i .50 

Eureka, a Prose Poem — S. H. Newberry i . 00 

Rust (a play in four acts) — Algernon Tassin (of 

Columbia University) i . 00 

Poems by Charles Guinness i . 00 

Prohibition and Anti-Prohibition — Rommel, 

Ziegler & Herz i . 00 

Gay Gods and Merry Mortals — Verse by Robert J. 

Shores i . 00 

The Rubaiyat of the College Student — Ned Nafe .50 
The Deluge of England, and Other Poems — James 

Francis Thierry i .00 

The Dragon's Teeth — a Philosophical and Eco- 
nomic Work — T. M. Sample i .00 

Achsah, the Sister of Jairus — Mabel Cronise 

Jones 1 .00 

The Marriage Bargain Counter — Daisy Deane . . i . 50 
Building a New Empire — Nathaniel M. Ayers. . 1.50 

Marriage and Divorce — Jeanette Laurance i . 00 

The Clothespin Brigade — Clara L. Smiley 75 

"Forget It" — Ida Von Claussen = i .50 

The Last Word: a Philosophical Essay — James 

and Mary Baldwin i . 00 

Travel 

Eight Lands in Eight Weeks (illustrated by 90 
drawings) — Marcia P. Snyder .^ . 1 . 25 

Eliza and Etheldreda in Mexico — Patty Guthrie 
(illustrated) i .25 

The attention of clergymen is directed to our Religious List, one 
of the largest of any house in America. 

Write for free copy of our magazine, BOOK CHAT. 

BROADWAY PUBLISfflNG CO., 835 BROADWAY, N. Y. 

Branch Offices: 

ATLANTA BALTIMORE INDIANAPOLIS NORFOLK 

WASHINGTON PES MOINES, IOWA 






,0"^ **.•_"- ''<?^ 



















'bV^ 




C^ . 



^^o' 




^oV" 












'^d' 
^<=>^ 








■^0' 

^9^ 




♦ -^^ <^. "^ 




^^^ , l!yyi%r~ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

At, '• ' ^ Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

^o^ ** ' PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

«>^ 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

O Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

,CS . (724)779-2111 






^^■^-J. 

t..^ o 









^-..^^ 



^^.^^ 









...» .0'' -^^ 



v..^-* 






• • • ' C. .0 ,'•»,'> V 






^•^°* 



■•^^ ^*-^ ''•" " 






